[rfc-i] <list> brainstorming
nico at cryptonector.com
Tue Jan 28 23:14:34 PST 2014
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 12:40 AM, Nico Williams <nico at cryptonector.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 12:26 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Why not just move to HTML and have done?
> Because we want to be able to express metadata by schema rather than
> by convention.
Someone thought I might have meant "all". I meant "those of us what
want an XML schema for authoring RFCs".
I might not even want that. I'd settle for anything that permits
first-class treatment of relevant metadata and comes with sufficient
tooling. A JSON-based schema would do fine. The key is authoring
tools that make it easy to get any schema/conventions right and hard
to get them wrong, while also enabling automatic metadata and data
extraction and rendering to various formats. XML happens to be what
exists and meets my requirements, but I'd switch to something better.
Given that I'm an author of a non-XML RFC authoring tool -lyx2rfc- I'd
think that this should be clear...
More information about the rfc-interest