[rfc-i] Availability of XML Sources

Phillip Hallam-Baker hallam at gmail.com
Thu Jan 2 21:52:09 PST 2014

On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 7:28 PM, Joe Touch <touch at isi.edu> wrote:

> On 1/2/2014 4:19 PM, John Levine wrote:
>> A few of us are still waiting to see how this will play out with modern
>>> editing software.
>> Can we not have the "everyone uses MS Word and it's impossible to
>> write plugins" argument again, please?
> It's not about plug-ins; it can easily be about post-processors to convert
> one version of XML into another.
> This discussion has been dancing on the head of a pin regarding the
> nuances of details of XML in the absence of the impact of those changes on
> authors. That's the part I wanted to raise.
> I.e., making suggestions about how to (over)optimize the XML requirements
> would be more productive if it considered whether those changes had any
> impact - not just on Word, but on other editors as well.

I think Mark Nottingham had the right approach: Markdown.

If I get time I will add it to the increasingly inappropriately names
HTML2RFC (it already does XML2RFC in and out)

Website: http://hallambaker.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20140103/1778b07b/attachment.htm>

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list