[rfc-i] issue: canonical formats

John R Levine johnl at taugh.com
Sun Jun 3 05:50:53 PDT 2012


> I have no problem at looking at the metadata and markup that XML2RFC 
> supports right now, but in my opinion, XML2RFC took some things too far 
> and its structure is too complex and too rigid for human authors to 
> create, so we should be careful about what we import from XML2RFC.

Opinions vary.  I have no problem writing xml2rfc using a simple emacs 
mode that tells me what open tags I have.  But I hear there's one guy who 
still wants to use crufty old Microsoft Word, and I expect there are 
others who use other editors, so the issue is something that editing tools 
can read and write.

> Why not include the author's latitude and longitude rather than trying 
> to attach meaning to postal codes?

Unless you're planning to target drone attacks on authors with whom you 
disagree, I'm having trouble figuring out what the point of this would be.

> I think with HTML we can have the tagging and with CSS we can have 
> usable layout. Yes, the tagging will be less than in XML and the layout 
> will be less than in PDF, but we do get the enormous advantage that we 
> don't need to maintain two forms and tools to convert from one to the 
> other.

I'm not opposed to HTML, but I doubt that a useful version of HTML would 
be any easier to edit than xml2rfc.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl at taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
"I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list