[rfc-i] Does the canonical RFC format need to be "readable" by developers and others?
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Tue Jul 10 08:13:17 PDT 2012
On 2012-07-10 17:05, Yoav Nir wrote:
> On Jul 10, 2012, at 4:50 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> On 2012-07-10 15:39, Yoav Nir wrote:
>>> The other problem that keeps coming up is people wanting to add images, graphs and formulas to documents. XML2RFC as it currently stands is just as ill-suited for this as nroff.
>> xml2rfc, when producing HTML, manages inclusion of graphics quite well
>> Formulas (if falling back to graphics isn't acceptable) are indeed not
> Thanks. I've been using XML2RFC for 5 years and didn't know about that. Not that it helps the author much, because you still have to produce the ASCII art for the text version.
> For the RFC editor to move to XML2RFC would require that either the images would be embedded in the generated HTML, or hosted on the RFC editor's website, depending on how much we feel that offline reading is important (it definitely gives you something to do on the plane going to an IETF meeting. Or a boat)
The images can be embedded using data: URIs if we want stand-alone
documents (however, that will rule out a few ancient browsers which will
then get only the fallback content).
Best regards, Julian
More information about the rfc-interest