[rfc-i] Canonical input formats
Fred Baker (fred)
fred at cisco.com
Tue Jul 31 16:59:17 PDT 2012
On Jul 31, 2012, at 4:55 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> As someone who was forced to write code in FORTRAN at one point, I
> would not assume that the reason they use nroff is necessarily a
> matter of personal preference.
> I would also suggest that we are the customer here. If their tool will
> not produce the output we need then we need to give them a different
We are certainly *a* customer, and an important one.
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Fred Baker (fred) <fred at cisco.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 31, 2012, at 11:40 AM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
>>> You see where I'm going. It would be nice if the RFC Editor could advise the community what input format they use
>> I asked Alice, considering her a person likely to know the answer. Their current output format is "text", and the tool they use to produce it is nroff. If a document is given to them in XML form, they do most of the editing in XML, but at the last instant it is transmogrified to nroff, AUTH48 comments are applied to the nroff input, and the thing "just before text" is "nroff".
>> One thing we might consider in figuring out how to change that is how our proposals relate to their work flow and problem set. I'll bet that among the tooling changes needed if we want them to not do that will relate to the tools they use. I suspect they use nroff for the same reason I personally use XML2RFC and Joe likes HTML: It's familiar to them, is supported by tools they know how to use, and at least mostly works.
>> rfc-interest mailing list
>> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> Website: http://hallambaker.com/
The ignorance of how to use new knowledge stockpiles exponentially.
- Marshall McLuhan
More information about the rfc-interest