[rfc-i] <list> brainstorming
hallam at gmail.com
Wed Jan 29 06:01:19 PST 2014
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 1:40 AM, Nico Williams <nico at cryptonector.com>wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 12:26 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam at gmail.com>
> > Why not just move to HTML and have done?
> Because we want to be able to express metadata by schema rather than
> by convention.
I have a schema... just maybe not an XML schema.
The whole point of XML is that it is extensible. Yet we spend our time
trying to develop a whole new document format rather than add in the extra
information our particular application needs. That looks to me like
something is wrong somewhere.
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 2:25 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de>
> On 2014-01-29 07:26, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>> Why not just move to HTML and have done?
> We had these discussions over the last years, and I'm very happy that a
> decision has been made. It would be a big throwback to re-open it.
No, we agreed to use XML2RFC as the internal representation for the RFC
editor work flow. I see no need to revisit that choice.
What we have now drifted into is a different discussion which is 'fix the
crazy in XML2RFC so that people can use it as an input format'.
It is rather remarkable that 20 years on we still have no good editing
tools for XML or HTML. What we have is Web site building tools that use
HTML as if it was PDF. That is not the same thing.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the rfc-interest