[rfc-i] draft-iab-streams-headers-boilerplates-06 : overlooked details?
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Sun Feb 1 10:33:37 PST 2009
John C Klensin wrote:
> But those changes and the relationship it implies between RFCs
> and I-Ds means that there is no such thing as "things that the
> RFC Editor will need ... to create the appropriate boilerplate".
> Unless I completely misunderstand how the RFC Editor staff works
> these days, if the RFC Editor needs to create boilerplate, paste
> it in, and structure the text to include it, we are back to
> significant manual processing in nroff... and we are back to the
> point at which an RFC format cannot be produced directly from
> XML, that the XML->HTML pieces of those tools cannot accurately
> render an RFC, and probably that those who are revising
> documents cannot start with the XML form of the RFC and easily
> convert back to I-D format. All of those things are possible
> and convenient today.
As one of the tool implementors, what I'm looking for is:
- stability (if we revise the RFC boilerplate, can we *please* do that
to I-D boilerplate at the *same* point of time?) (*)
- clear instructions
- optimally, no *additional* heuristics for determining the boilerplate
for existing documents (look at the source of xml2rfc.tcl and/or
- sufficient time to implement and test the changes
(*) while we're at it, it would be totally cool if we could get the
front-matter/author/contributor/acknowledgments issue resolved as well.
More information about the rfc-interest