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

John Levine johnl at taugh.com
Mon Jun 25 08:40:30 PDT 2012

>That relying on code is a big liability.

Then it's certainly fortunate that nobody is proposing to do so.

xml2rfc is a documented format.  It's well enough documented that
there are at least two separate implementations to interpret it
and translate it to other formats.

To the extent that the spec has holes, we should fix them.  It's not a
big deal.  This is the IETF, we fix holes in specs every day.

Really, I don't understand why the prospect of maybe having to look at
XML code every once in a blue moon reduces people to incontinent
terror.  It's not the most beautiful language in the world, but it's
about as simple as it can be and still handle the metadata it handles,
and there are a lot of XML tools available.  It's simpler than any
plausible HTML that would provide similar function, and XML tools are
far better at interpreting and preserving structure than HTML tools


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list