[rfc-i] [Tools-discuss] RFC Index Files Updates -- XML and HTML
fred at cisco.com
Tue Aug 18 11:04:39 PDT 2009
I would agree that people that are parsing rfc-index.txt should
probably be using the XML version.
On Aug 18, 2009, at 8:24 AM, Bob Braden wrote:
> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> Thanks for this.
>> Is there any reason not to add the stream info to the .txt version
>> of the index?
> This is the result of a 10-year old policy at the RFC Editor. After
> Joyce and I took over the job, the desire arose to add additional
> fields to rfc-index.txt. However, input from various people in the
> community convinced us that a fair number of hard-core Internauts
> had written their own code to parse the obscure syntax of rfc-
> index.txt and reformat it for their own purposes. We feared that
> adding new fields to rfc-index.txt would screw these people. We
> therefore decided to freeze the format of rfc-index.txt at the 1989
> level, and instead make an html version (and later an xml version)
> with extended fields. So all changes or extensions to the index
> format go only into the .xml and .html versions.
> Now that XML has taken over the world, maybe this policy should be
> Bob Braden
> Tools-discuss mailing list
> Tools-discuss at ietf.org
More information about the rfc-interest