[rfc-i] Graceful degradation is key, was: Re: draft-hildebrand-html-rfc
mrex at sap.com
Mon Jul 16 18:51:36 PDT 2012
Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) wrote:
> "Martin Rex" <mrex at sap.com> wrote:
> >But I want the RFC Editor to continue to accept nroff submissions
> >for those that don't want to waste their authoring time on XML/HTML
> >bike shedding.
> To be clear: are you of the opinion that we should *never* change from the
> status quo under any circumstances?
I don't have the slighest clue why you infer this from what I am saying.
Why do you believe that killing nroff submission format and nroff-based
existing authoring tools is a necessary prerequisite for rendering
RFCs in HTML?
A new toolchain for the RFC Editor is not going to drop out of the
blue sky in production quality, so there is going to be a period
where old and new will exist in parallel. Assuming (or planning for)
a flag day seems unreasonable.
There is no need to kill nroff submission format, and potentially,
converting nroff submission to a future HTML-based RFC editor toolchain
is simple enough that nroff submission format can stay for as long
as the xml2rfc / html toothing problems persist.
More information about the rfc-interest