[rfc-i] New proposal for "canonical and others"
touch at isi.edu
Sat Jun 16 07:36:33 PDT 2012
On Jun 15, 2012, at 3:21 PM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman at vpnc.org> wrote:
> Greetings again. I was surprised by the amount of interest people here had for having the canonical format for RFCs be XML or HTML. I agree with JoeH's thesis that having the canonical format be the same as the input format will reduce the number of hidden surprises for authors during their review of the RFC Editor's changes. (Can we stop calling that "AUTH48" now?)
> 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,
Which argues against HTML...
> whereas a similar (as yet non-existant) XML-aware editing program
Proposing a format with a nonexistent editor is better than one that existing editors mangle. That's a clever way to define away the problem, but not a road to a solution.
IMO a solution needs both a format and a reasonable set of supporting editors.
More information about the rfc-interest