[rfc-i] Proposed new RFC submission requirements

Tim Bray tbray at textuality.com
Thu May 24 10:01:51 PDT 2012


I think the xml2rfc format is irritating and diverges from common
document-markup practice in several jarring ways. I also think it's Good
Enough, and a long history of “really minor” document-redesign efforts
turning into extended painfests leads me to think we should just stay with
it.

 -T

On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Joe Hildebrand <jhildebr at cisco.com> wrote:

> On 5/24/12 10:43 AM, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
>
> > xml2rfc already supports images.
>
> Good to know.  Are there any other changes that you think are needed to the
> xml2rfc format?
>
> --
> Joe Hildebrand
>
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20120524/5f3a34a9/attachment.htm>


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list