[rfc-i] issue: canonical formats

Iljitsch van Beijnum iljitsch at muada.com
Sun Jun 3 13:12:44 PDT 2012


On 3 Jun 2012, at 17:59 , Joe Hildebrand wrote:

> 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.

We must be living in vastly different worlds. Lightly structured HTML with no provisions for special display tricks is much more easy to edit than the XML2RFC format. The nesting / containment alone adds a significant amount of extra time/effort.

Of course we don't have a good idea of a new HTML RFC format yet so it's hard to make definitive determinations.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list