- From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
- Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 19:51:21 -0700
- To: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>, "Bjoern Hoehrmann (derhoermi@gmx.net)" <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- CC: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, "rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org" <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>, "spec-prod@w3.org" <spec-prod@w3.org>, "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr@cisco.com)" <jhildebr@cisco.com>
In particular, "respec" wasn't written by or managed by W3C staff. And I don't think either group is considering making the interim tooling (such as respect in W3C or xml2rfc in IETF) as mandatory-to-use tools, but rather standardizing on a (new) format standard, but insuring there is current tooling to support easy production of documents in that format. -----Original Message----- From: Iljitsch van Beijnum [mailto:iljitsch@muada.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 11:25 AM To: Larry Masinter Cc: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org Subject: Re: [rfc-i] FW: IETF RFC format <-> W3C pubrules On 8 May 2012, at 20:20 , Larry Masinter wrote: > Here's a quick summary: Thanks, I'll read up when I get a change. However: > One of the tools is ReSpec.js http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/ReSpec.js/documentation.html which might be adaptable for IETF use. Although it would seem to make sense for the two to work together, wouldn't it be a huge liability for both of them to depend on the other for something so crucial?
Received on Wednesday, 9 May 2012 02:52:02 UTC