[rfc-i] Does the canonical RFC format need to be "readable" by developers and others?

Joe Touch touch at isi.edu
Fri Jul 6 14:31:41 PDT 2012

On 7/6/2012 5:56 AM, Peter Sylvester wrote:
> On 07/06/2012 02:41 PM, Martin Rex wrote:
>> Julian Reschke wrote:
>>> On 2012-07-06 01:44, Martin Rex wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>> Moving away from plain ASCII is magnitudes easier than moving away from
>>>> XML, which is why ASCII is a pretty good choice in the first place.
>>>> ...
>>> If moving away from plain ASCII was "easy", it would have happened
>>> already.
> Martin:
> In this millenium I don't think that any RFC had been written
> directly in ASCII only with a simple editor as tool.

See RFC5385. We've discussed its use in ths thready.

> Since very long (for me at least 30 years) people either use
> some kind of markup language like nroff or ibm script, tex
> etc.
> xml is just simplified sgml which is just a normalized form of
> any of the markup tools.
> Yes, so call wysiwyg editors have obscured the skills of people
> even for writing a C program, a script or whatever.

Yes, it's obscured me from needing to focus on writing code, and allowed 
me to focus on writing English instead.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list