[rfc-i] New proposal for "canonical and others"

John Levine johnl at taugh.com
Fri Jun 15 18:23:45 PDT 2012


>Greetings again. I was surprised by the amount of interest people here had for having the canonical
>format for RFCs be XML or HTML.

The logic is pretty compelling.  It seems clear to me that we're not
going to find a presentation format that can do everything we want a
canonical format to do, and also can be edited reasonably.

>For this draft, I chose XML instead of HTML for a variety of reasons. Basically, there are too many
>things that an HTML-aware editing program might do that would not match the constrained format that
>RFC Editor will surely require, whereas a similar (as yet non-existant) XML-aware editing program
>probably would not.

There are XML editors with configurations that know about the xml2rfc
DTD and can help you create correct XML, such as the freeware xxe.  I
wouldn't say it's the best editor ever, but it's an existence proof
that such things are possible.  I think Dave Crocker uses another XML
editor that he likes.

For people who want to use other editors, such as bloatware from
suburban Seattle, it's likely that we'll want transators to and
from whatever formats the other editors use, but that doesn't
seem impossibly hard.

R's,
John




More information about the rfc-interest mailing list