[rfc-i] New proposal for "canonical and others"
ynir at checkpoint.com
Sat Jun 16 22:04:14 PDT 2012
On Jun 17, 2012, at 6:30 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
> On Jun 16, 2012, at 5:19 PM, "John Levine" <johnl at taugh.com> wrote:
>>> As long as we're pedantic: just because they manage to write it, doesn't
>>> mean they can read it.
>> Hmmn. Is there some reason to believe that it is useful to make
>> unsupported assertions that fly in the face of our experience?
>> By the way, yes, there are XML editors that can edit xml2rfc, a point
>> that's been repeatedly made on this list. They may not be fabulous,
>> but they're good enough that some people use them.
> So is ASCII, which everyone uses now. By this thread's logic, there is no change from the status quo needed.
The need to move away from the status quo is not driven by the lack of tools for draft writers. It's driven by the need to create text that looks better on modern devices and better illustrations.
More information about the rfc-interest