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

Leonard Rosenthol lrosenth at adobe.com
Mon Mar 26 02:57:38 PDT 2012


>The odds of convincing vanilla Word to output reasonable
>semantically-relevant machine-readable output seem comically small.
>
I would agree with that sentence because of the addition of the word
"vanilla" before Word.

HOWEVER, the use of plugins to MSWord to provide improved output
capabilities is well established and has been part of the
workflow/ecosystem of many for at least a decade or more.  Is the addition
of a plugin to Word any more/less reasonable than a completely separate
tool (eg. xml2rfc)??

I have no specific preference for or against the use of the .doc or .docx
formats, but I would like to refute your position below on pure technical
grounds.

1 - Both .doc and .docx are human-editable, obviously
2 - .docx is an XML-based format with rich semantics and transformable to
other formats using standard tooling
3 - Both .doc and .docx are single file formats
4 - Both .doc and .docx support Unicode
5 - Both .doc and .docx work just fine with all standard RCS's

Leonard


On 3/25/12 1:43 PM, "Patrick Linskey (plinskey)" <plinskey at cisco.com>
wrote:

>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
>
>-- 
>Patrick Linskey
>202 669 5907
>_______________________________________________
>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