[rfc-i] Regarding section 2.3
nico at cryptonector.com
Fri Feb 1 12:33:21 PST 2013
Section 2.3 strongly implies that the RFC-Editor wishes to continue
with roff as the final revisable format. But it seems to me that the
RFC-Editor should be open to alternative typesetting formats. What I
think we want is to say that any XML or other markup language used by
authors must be able to render in the RFC-Editor's choice of
I also suppose that xml2rfc and its schema might get so darned good at
typesetting RFCs that no intermediate typesetting format conversion
might be needed.
So what's the advice to draw from section 2.3? Surely not just that
xml2rfc had better continue having an option to output roff (though
clearly that is good advice).
More information about the rfc-interest