[rfc-i] Proposed new RFC submission requirements

Bjoern Hoehrmann derhoermi at gmx.net
Fri May 25 15:49:24 PDT 2012


* Paul Hoffman wrote:
>Are other folks on this list happy with the proposal to require xml2rfc
>as mandatory for the input format for RFC publishing? This would apply
>to all the streams (Independent, IRTF, and IAB), not just IETF
>documents.

I think I am not okay with that, but the question is not specific enough
to say for sure. For instance, I have found myself to use invalid markup
because some formatting cannot be achieved using valid markup, and I've
used large pre-formatted text sections to work around similar problems.
To illustrate, when someone submits something akin to

  <xml2rfc>
  <plaintext>
  ...
  </plaintext>
  </xml2rfc>

where the "..." is simply a .txt version as you would submit currently,
is that using the xml2rfc format, even though it's not really marked up
in any way? I think you would have largely follow the xml2rfc rules and
features in order to be considered "using" it, and as it is, I think the
xml2rfc format is not up for the task.
-- 
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/ 


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list