[rfc-i] FW: IETF RFC format <-> W3C pubrules
hallam at gmail.com
Wed May 9 04:06:31 PDT 2012
I have worked with W3C since the very start. There has been one format
from start to finish. It has always been HTML.
HTML has developed over time and there have been tools to check nits.
But those appeared in W3C before they appeared in IETF.
The RFC2XML tool is a one off because the only thing it is good for is
to make RFCs. There is a lot more interest in making tools that
produce HTML because that is a format people like to use rather than
hate the sight of.
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi at gmx.net> wrote:
> * Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>>On 8 May 2012, at 20:20 , Larry Masinter wrote:
>>> One of the tools is ReSpec.js http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/ReSpec.js/documentation.html
>>> which might be adaptable for IETF use.
>>Although it would seem to make sense for the two to work together,
>>wouldn't it be a huge liability for both of them to depend on the other
>>for something so crucial?
> RFC 2629 (the xml2rfc format) has been around for about as long as I
> have been involved with the W3C and the IETF. `xml2rfc` is still alive
> and kicking, with very broad adoption. In contrast, the W3C has used
> any number of formats and toolchains during the period. As the people
> who made or maintained the formats and toolchains lose interest, the
> formats and the toolchains die "quickly". I'd suggest to keep in mind
> that the IETF output is an order of magnitude greater than that of the
> The W3C is also unlikely to coordinate tool development with non-W3C
> parties. For instance, HTML Tidy http://tidy.sf.net/ originated there,
> but maintenance of the tool became a problem, so a couple of people,
> including myself, took over maintenance and development in form of a
> SourceForge project. The W3C showed no interest in that over the years
> until last year, when I published a patch for rudimentary "HTML5" sup-
> port. Then the W3C took the latest sources and my patch, and created a
> fork, publicized it, and has since "maintained" the fork in a manner
> incompatible with established practises and goals of the SourceForge
> project. The W3C made no attempt whatsoever to announce, discuss, or
> otherwise coordinate their fork with the HTML Tidy project, including
> no attempts to express dissatisfaction prior to their hostile take-
> over. And while I very explicitly asked for feedback when I published
> my patch for "HTML5" support they used to create their fork -- and they
> certainly seem to have found issues with it -- no feedback ever made
> its way into my inbox.
> So I would not see this as a "huge liability", just as, plainly, silly.
> Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern at hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
> Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
> 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest