[rfc-i] RFC editing tools

Ted Lemon mellon at fugue.com
Tue Dec 11 12:42:32 PST 2012

On Dec 11, 2012, at 3:23 PM, "John Levine" <johnl at taugh.com> wrote:
> The reason I would strongly prefer an xml to html format is that
> everyone agrees that xml is a strongly typed structured document
> markup language, while html can be anywhere from that to a low level
> way to add font changes to text.

Which raises the related point that the HTML spec contains a lot of stuff that absolutely can't appear in an RFC.   So even if we were to choose HTML as a canonical format, what we'd really be choosing would be XML with much weaker typing (everything's a classed div) and some tags in common with HTML.

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list