[rfc-i] transition plan for choosing alternative format for RFCs

Larry Masinter masinter at adobe.com
Sat Mar 24 21:43:25 PDT 2012

Elements of the transition plan I outlined could be used for ANY format
chosen other than ASCII text (even  txt but some Unicode characters

Tim said  "HTML works great with basically everything" isn't true for *all*
 HTML; if PDF isn't acceptable, then given
not all HTML would be acceptable either.

You have a "low resolution or small screen mobile device" requirement.
It's not clear to me that satisfying that requirement is as important as the
"self-contained archive" requirement, for example, if it came down to
  choosing   one over the other.  

It's great if there are accessible editions of every document, of course,
but "standards" often have more accessible resources describing,
explaining, illustrating the standard. If you want to read something
on your phone... is it important to reduce other requirements so that
you can accomplish that?

It's possible to that an (extended) xml2rfc (XML) format which could be
transformed into ASCII text, Unicode text, PDF/A, HTML and ePub
formats would be a better choice as the "authoritative" version.

Is it possible to take an ASCII text file and generate an xml2rfc input
which would re-generate the same text? But also generate good looking
appropriate HTML, PDF?


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list