[rfc-i] Have we standardized on Pandoc style Markdown?

Phillip Hallam-Baker phill at hallambaker.com
Mon Nov 30 12:17:39 PST 2015

I just pushed an update to my RFCTool to Sourceforge.


The main change in the current code is that I have eliminated all
dependencies on proprietary code for parsing Microsoft Word. That means the
tool is now completely unencumbered and available under an MIT license. It
has only been tested on Windows but 'should' run on OSX or Linux under Mono
[or possibly .Net Core.]

What the tool will do is to read RFC input in any of the following formats:

MarkDown (Wikipedia)
Word (.docx)
HTML (ignores stylesheet)
xml2rfc (v2 only)

And generate any of the following formats:

MarkDown (Wikipedia)
Word (.docx)
HTML (flat, no stylesheet)
xml2rfc (v2 only)

The main advantages over other processors are:

* Automatic resolution of references.
* Ability to include information from external sources

The last is the main reason I wrote the tool since I use reference material
and examples that are generated automatically by my coding tools.

At the moment this is slightly limited in that the Word and MarkDown
formats are completely interchangeable, you can call out Markdown code from
a Word document for example, but the xml2rfc and HTML formats only accept
included files in the same format.

Once there is a stable RFC 'next gen' format and a consensus on what the
HTML should look like, I will generate for that style sheet. I would
ideally like to be able to round trip from any of the formats into any of
the others. So it would be nice if the HTML format preserves metadata

Do we have a consensus on using Pandoc style markdown? I started off using
Wikipedia style which is ever so slightly different. While I will probably
keep the Wikipedia style parser, it would probably be a good idea to only
have one output style.

There are hooks in the code that should allow documents, etc. to be
automatically converted as well. But I don't need that feature right now.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20151130/71a4f053/attachment.html>

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list