[rfc-i] xml2rfc FAQ available
nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de
Wed Aug 27 15:17:21 PDT 2008
Alice Hagens wrote:
Great. As always the demon question, *where* is
the text/plain output for rfcmarkup, or the XML
source to create it ?
The audience of my IETF tools page are Lynx users,
any other stoneage browser not supporting CSS, or
modern mobile devices with their own restrictions.
Without TXT version common tasks such as rfcdiff
don't work. Without XML folks insisting on PDF
in addition to HTML (please don't ask why, I have
not the faintest idea) cannot use Julian's tools.
Julian's tools support lots of other magic, all
directly on the XML, avoiding the lossy TXT step
for the various IETF tools.
3.1 bullet 1 s/at the top/DTD subset at the top/
(terminology not, "at the top" is IMO too vague).
The note "choose uppercase" is IMHO unnecessary:
Whatever folks pick, it has to match the use in
the references. A reference has to be used in
the body (otherwise this triggers a warning for
strict). The entity name is *unrelated* to the
fragment identifier determined by the anchor in
the imported bibxml snippet, that is something
confusing authors: Entity name and fragment id.
*appear* to be related for RFCs.
3.1 bullet 2: <?rfc include= is an alternative,
but I'm not sure if this is a good idea for uses
of Bill's validator, or of the W3C validator.
For US-ASCII output (my use case) you propose a
reference-trick to bypass an <eref> limitation.
I didn't know that this fails for text output,
that's a bug: For <eref target="xyz">abc</eref>
I expect xyz abc or similar, not only abc.
And in the simple <eref target="123" /> case it
works, I get 123 as text, not an empty string.
3.10 Same issue as for <eref />, something with
<xref target="RFC2119"> section 2 </xref> is not
as it should be for the purposes of rfcmarkup.
3.11 Brilliant, I didn't know format="title".
Ditto most list details in chapter 4, thanks.
5.1 <artwork> outside of <figure>, are you sure
that this is valid XML based on the DTD ? There
are situations when I use the W3C validator...
6.5 Interesting, I have to test inline="no", it
sounds like a plan to use <cref> in a good way.
1.4 Maybe add self-references to all formats of
the FAQ (HTML, TXT, XML) here. For drafts and
RFCs everybody knows where that is, but the FAQ
and the Checklist are no ordinary numbered I-Ds.
The 2006 slides exist also in a human readable
format, not only as proprietary document format:
Eager to add a rfcmarkup link to the TXT version
on my IETF tools page,
More information about the rfc-interest