[rfc-i] Does the canonical RFC format need to be "readable" by developers and others?
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Fri Jun 22 08:54:11 PDT 2012
On 2012-06-22 17:43, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 05:14:48PM +0200, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> On 2012-06-22 11:53, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>>> The problem with XML2RFC is that it makes perfect sense once you're an expert, but then, you first need to be an expert.
>> There's a mailing list where you can ask for advice.
> If we are going to pick the Official Format of Some Tool as the
> canonical version of a document, the documentation for that tool
> cannot be "ask on the mailing list for help". I think I have fewer
> complaints than Iljitsch about xml2rfc, but I do not believe that the
> documentation model of Linux systems circa 1995 is an acceptable one
> for the mainline standard tool, if it's to become such.
I don't disagree; I was just pointing out that there is a way to get help.
Best regards, Julian
More information about the rfc-interest