[rfc-i] issue: canonical formats
jhildebr at cisco.com
Sun Jun 3 15:11:20 PDT 2012
On 6/3/12 2:12 PM, "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <iljitsch at muada.com> wrote:
>> 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.
I was giving preference to the status quo for fairness. I personally find
the HTML easier.
> Of course we don't have a good idea of a new HTML RFC format yet so it's hard
> to make definitive determinations.
I'm getting closer to having something to publish.
More information about the rfc-interest