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

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Sat Jul 7 08:31:30 PDT 2012

On 2012-07-07 17:24, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
>> On 2012-07-07 17:02, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>>> In practice it is very easy to find HTML editors that do not muck
>>> stuff up as all of us who have produced W3 drafts know.
>> Example? I'd like to try.
> I usually use Visual Studio, there is a free version that is Web only.

OK; will give it a try.

>>> It is also very easy to take HTML and throw out the crap using a tool
>>> that removes unwanted stylesheets, etc etc. You can even use Word with
>>> that approach.
>> Throwing unwanted stuff out is indeed easy. What's a bit harder is to
>> normalize the document structure.
> I don't see what you mean there.

Like weird nesting of <div> elements.

> Now it might be difficult to do some stuff in XSLT but I would never
> use that. It is as complex as a real programming language so why not
> use a real programming language.

It is a real programming language. But of course there's no reasin it 
has to be XSLT.

>>> The XML2RFC format is not a good document format. The designer seems
>>> to have decided to do things their way without any good reason not to
>>> follow the HTML approach. So things that are easy in HTML, like lists
>>> require reference to manuals. Why they chose to use <t> instead of <p>
>>> and so on? Its like the inventor was deliberately trying to make the
>>> thing different and hard.
>> I wasn't around, but my guess is that if you name things the same way,
>> people will assume they are the same.
> And what would be wrong with that? A lot of effort went into HTML 2.0.
> There is a reason that the headings are specified the way they are
> rather than as recursive containers.

But then there's also a reason why HTML 5 introduces a new containment 
model for sections :-).

> I think it was a huge dose of NIH.

Maybe; I wouldn't know.

Best regards, Julian

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list