[rfc-i] Does the canonical RFC format need to be "readable" by developers and others?
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Fri Jun 22 02:41:26 PDT 2012
On 2012-06-22 10:42, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> Apart from that, it demands excessive amounts of tagging for things like even the author's name, then tries to be smart in composing a full name from the parts but doesn't allow for names that don't use standard English capitalization. So it makes me do more work for an inferior result (but that part is my own little annoyance). When adding a reference to something lesser known (not an RFC or draft) you have to encode enormous amounts of information that never make it into the text, like even the entire abstract of the document referred to. This is a waste of time, authors have better things to do.
That is incorrect. Many part of the reference are optional; <abstract>
> Last but not least, humans forget to close tags once in a while. Debugging that is utter hell, because the tool doesn't help you find the possible location where this happened at all.
That's why I keep recommending to run the source through a proper XML
validation tool first.
> So in my experience, XML2RFC is just barely better than creating the RFC format by hand, but it is a constant annoyance and time waster on many levels.
For the record: I *totally* disagree with this :-)
Best regards, Julian
More information about the rfc-interest