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

Patrick Linskey (plinskey) plinskey at cisco.com
Sun Mar 25 10:43:16 PDT 2012

On Mar 25, 2012, at 6:09, "Larry Masinter" <masinter at adobe.com> wrote:

> Converge on an "authoring" format implies restricting authoring tools; I think this is a high and unwarranted cost. So I think focusing on publication format, and allowing Word, NRoff, XML2RFC input paths to remain while getting better experience with other document forms.

The odds of convincing vanilla Word to output reasonable semantically-relevant machine-readable output seem comically small. 

I'm joining the party late here, but my assumption from these threads is that the goals of a new format include:

- human-editable
- easily machine-readable, including semantic awareness (implies transformable)
- single-file archive format
- Unicode support
- suitable for revision control systems

Word fails three of these requirements. 

Lazy question: is there an exhaustive requirements list?


Patrick Linskey
202 669 5907

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list