[rfc-i] <list> brainstorming
Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)
rse at rfc-editor.org
Wed Jan 29 11:28:18 PST 2014
On 1/29/14 3:17 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2014-01-29 15:01, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 1:40 AM, Nico Williams <nico at cryptonector.com
>> <mailto:nico at cryptonector.com>> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 12:26 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker
>> <hallam at gmail.com <mailto: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.
>> I have a schema... just maybe not an XML schema.
> I don't think anybody is particularly interested by "XML Schema" over here.
>> 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
> No, we are revising one that we already have.
>> extra information our particular application needs. That looks to me
>> like something is wrong somewhere.
> Again, "HTML + metadata extensions" was on the table as well, but the
> decision has been made to revise the xml2rfc format instead.
At this point in time, I believe XML makes sense as the canonical format
for the RFC series. Trying to reopen that debate at this time does not
help move forward the effort of getting the format changed to something
we can use. Including HTML output is of course absolutely critical, and
I appreciate the tools people have worked on to make transformations
from HTML to XML, XML to HTML, markup to XML or HTML, and so on.
Documenting the xml2rfc vocabulary that has been used for years and
considering extensions to that vocabulary is not, I believe, a whole new
More information about the rfc-interest