[rfc-i] Internet Draft Format
jhildebr at cisco.com
Sun Mar 25 05:45:59 PDT 2012
On 3/25/12 3:08 AM, "John Levine" <johnl at taugh.com> wrote:
>> And I'm taking the trouble to walk through this to make the point that
>> agreeing on "IETF canonical HTML" is going to be a big long subtle
>> argument, and I�m not sure it�s worth having.
> I don't see the advantage of IETF canonical HTML over xml2rfc. Any
> modern browser can render xml2rfc directly so long as it points to a
> suitable stylesheet. Unlike subset HTML, xml2rfc is already defined,
> and already supported by a variety of production software, including
> xml2rfc itself, rendering programs such as saxon, using an XSLT style
> sheet, and editors such as xxe.
You are not the target audience for the more-semantic HTML. Programs that
need to extract interesting bits are.
However, as I mentioned in a previous email, it makes sense to solve your
> If you want HTML, or plain text, or just about any other display
> format, the tools already exist. I routinely read drafts on my Kindle
> using off the shelf tools that turn XML into HTML and the HTML into
As long as someone makes the XML or HTML forms available, which doesn't
happen from a canonical source today.
More information about the rfc-interest