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

[Phillip Hallam-Baker]

+1

Particularly since the only times XML2RFC format would be required would be.

1) Developers: When writing tools to convert another format (e.g.
HTML) into XML2RFC to support authoring in that format

2) Developers: When writing tools to convert from XML2RFC format to
some other format (e.g. HTML, PDF/A, caveman).

3) RFC Editor: When processing files input in XML2RFC format either
directly or through any converter.

4) Expert witness: When paid $300+/hr to live with the indignity (we
will grin and bear it, trust us).


On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 11:40 AM, John Levine <johnl at taugh.com> wrote:
>>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
> are.
>
> R's,
> John
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest



-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/