[rfc-i] Internet Draft Format

Tim Bray tbray at textuality.com
Sat Mar 24 17:19:02 PDT 2012

On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam at gmail.com> wrote:

> I can't see any justification for the peculiar and unmemorable design
> choices in that particular schema unless the goal was to have the
> functionality of HTML in something that made it imposible to use HTML
> editing tools.

It’s here, it works, it produces highly usable output, and would allow
painless progress toward a bit more internationalization.  Those seem
like good arguments to me.

Designing document formats is *hard*; it typically requires a couple
of years' work from an Apps area WG.  Even creating a  subset of HTML
would be hard and time-consuming.  I speak from much bitter
experience.  Let’s take a few baby steps right now and try to hit
80/20 points.  Specifically, expand the character repertoire for
examples and names, and make the HTML output a first-class citizen.
Easy, fast and no downside.

If someone wants to charter a WG to define a new authoring format
(presumably an XHTML subset) I promise to show up and contribute. But
there's no need to defer all progress till that is done.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list