Julian Reschke wrote:
Paul Hoffman wrote:
...
It sure it. It just turns out to be a terrible format for extracting
text as anything other than lines, and even then doesn't work
reliably with commonly-used tools
...
It's also a terrible format for reading documentation in a Web Browser.
I believe the IETF and the W3C came up with a better format for that a
few years ago...
Not clear.
It might be that a small and well-chosen subset of [X]HTML, with strict
checking to limit the kinds of tags and parameters used, and data: URLs
for all images referenced from the main document, would be a decent RFC
format. But data: URLs are not as widely supported as we'd like. Nor
is MHTML. Having multiple files per document is less attractive.
I also suspect that using HTML for RFCs would invite a lot of heated
discussion on just what that HTML should look like. e.g. I personally
have an intense dislike for the HTML that xml2rfc produces, but I don't
have to care much as long as the plain text versions of those RFCs are
still authoritative.
I'm not saying [X]HTML RFCs are an inherently bad idea, just that
they're not as simple to get right as it might seem.
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf