[rfc-i] Does the canonical RFC format need to be "readable" by developers and others?

Iljitsch van Beijnum iljitsch at muada.com
Mon Jun 25 06:14:37 PDT 2012


On 25 Jun 2012, at 15:08 , Julian Reschke wrote:

>> A question for you: how hard would it be to re-imagine XML2RFC as HTML2RFC?

> The problem with that is that there are so many ways to do that that it'll likely involve lots of bike-shedding (for instance, as we have seen, whether to use containment or not, or the choice of how to embed metadata).

I wouldn't consider the containment issue a trivial choice subject to the bikeshedding phenomenon. But you're right that many important and trivial aspects of the new format will generate a lot of discussion.

> I'm also not sure what you mean by "the tools" -- would you still want plain text and "nroff" output?

Formatted ASCII: absolutely. A clean break with no ASCII version would be too traumatic, I expect. No opinion on nroff. And we certainly need PDF.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list