[rfc-i] Proposed new RFC submission requirements
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
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the rfc-interest