[rfc-i] re: new MS Word template
touch at ISI.EDU
Sat Oct 30 15:50:16 PDT 2004
John C Klensin wrote:
> --On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 17:23:24 -0700 Joe Touch <touch at ISI.EDU>
>>I have just completed an update to the Word template from RFC
>>3285. It includes a number of changes, including:
>> o redefines basic styles (Normal, Heading1, etc.) rather
>>than creating new styles (enables auto-renumbering in
>>outline mode when demoting/promoting)
>> o updates boilerplate according to RFC 3668
>> o uses more conventional methods for autonumbered
>>references and figures
>>The template and post-processing code, and Internet Draft
>>describing this new version are available at:
>>(the ID will be published after the IETF).
>>Comments and input appreciated.
> Based on discussions the last time around, this may be the wrong
> thing to do. Or perhaps not. Things for you to consider...
> (1) While redefining the basic styles will undoubtedly make
> things work more smoothly, those types of changes have a
> tendency to be irreversible. That is, for those of us who might
> want to use Word for RFCs but who must use it for many other
> types of documents according to organizational norms, your
> redefining basic types is nearly a showstopper. That certainly
> argues for "fork" in preference to "revision".
The styles are redefined in the template - use of the template does not
override these styles for documents based on other templates, e.g.,
Normal.dot, or IEEE .dot files. I've already verified this on my
machine, using the same machine for RFCs, IEEE docs, and a number of
others, and have used this sort of 'redefined basic styles' for many years.
More direct evidence that this is a 'showstopper' would be constructive.
> (2) I think that, with the advent of Word 2003 and its near-XML
> output capability the right way to do things going forward
> probably involves building appropriate style sheets and a
> Word-MS-XML to RFC 2629bis translator. That would give us an
> archival/ editing form we could deal with and that was not
> dependent on particular versions of Word.
That depends on XML support, which depends on a particular version of
Word (2003). As with nroff or xml2rfc, the assumption is that future
versions of word would reasonably support this template for a while.
Rather than start with something that supports 95 and beyond, 98 and
beyond, etc., I chose 2002, but there's no reason that (a few) newer
versions of Word should have problems with this template. Again, that is
my experience with templates.
> It would also deal
> with the line length issues and the almost-ASCII character
> problems with which the Word template approach has never been
Specific corrections would be useful. The current version, AFAICT, obeys
the line length fine. The issue with non-RFC ASCII characters (not all
ASCII are RFC-compliant) and extended ASCII characters is harder to fix
without a post-processor or custom output device. The latter is closer
to how nroff and xml2rfc fixes things, but is a bit overkill given
reasonable perl script capabilties, IMO. At some point this
post-processer scripting can be built into a macro that is triggered on
print or save.
> If needed, I'd assume that some of us could cobble up
> a Word 98/2000/XP -> Word 2003-> MS XML translator on a server
> somewhere with little trouble.
That still harkens back to the nroff-style of 'edit, translate, view'.
My goal is to move more toward something that can print directly to a
printer, without going through intermediate stages, as well as which
renders on the screen in something close to how it ends up printign.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 254 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20041030/a86d8168/signature.bin
More information about the rfc-interest