[rfc-i] issue: canonical formats
jhildebr at cisco.com
Sun Jun 3 08:59:05 PDT 2012
On 6/3/12 6:50 AM, "John R Levine" <johnl at taugh.com> wrote:
> I'm not opposed to HTML, but I doubt that a useful version of HTML would
> be any easier to edit than xml2rfc.
By hand, an HTML format may be slightly more difficult to edit than xml2rfc
format. However there are more tools to deal with HTML, for example ones
that show you the rendered version in real-time as you modify the source.
It's roughly a wash on ease of authoring so far, at least for me.
More information about the rfc-interest