[rfc-i] Internet Draft Format (was: Potential RFC format approach: HTML)

Tim Bray tbray at textuality.com
Sat Mar 24 10:31:36 PDT 2012

Well, there wouldn’t be any HTML for drafts that aren’t XML-based; but
that’s the only downside I can think of, and it isn’t a big one. -T

On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 3:02 AM, Fred Baker <fred at cisco.com> wrote:
> Let me ask a relatively straightforward question along these lines that could be actionable within a finite timeframe.
> Right now, the Secretariat will post drafts in four formats: .txt, .xml, .ps, and .pdf. The XML files are primarily for the convenience of the RFC Editor and communication within a working group and among co-authors - if .txt and .xml are uploaded together, there is little question what XML file produced the .txt. .pdf and .ps are considered auxiliary; you may upload them, but they are not normative.
> It seems to me that the .html file produced by the xml2html XLS script could be uploaded in a similar manner, and treated in the same way we treat .pdf and .ps. What doing so would permit is experimentation with the format as a documentation convention, which would in turn let us experiment with community-provided tools etc. If the experiment works out, there are some further discussions we could have with tools-discuss and the IAOC.
> Am I crazy?
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list