[rfc-i] Section structure, was: RFC editing tools

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Fri Dec 7 10:40:59 PST 2012


On 2012-12-07 19:33, Nico Williams wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
>> On 2012-12-07 18:40, Nico Williams wrote:
>>> ...
>>> That's easy: all the front and back matter metadata tags, like
>>>
>>> <author>, <organization>, <reference>.  And, of course, <rfc> itself.
>>>
>>> That said, I agree that for the meat of a document (the contents, the
>>> text) HTML is fine, and it's rather annoying that xml2rfc uses <t>
>>> where HTML uses <p>, and so on.  If I hadn't internalized it so well
>>> by now I'd have much harsher words than just "annoying"; for new users
>>> xml2rfc must feel like so much a result of NIH syndrome, like so much
>>> gratuitous torture.  Here it may be that the only material addition
>>> xml2rfc has to bring to the table is <artwork>, and then only because
>>> we like (well, I do, anyways) ASCII art.
>>
>> <pre>?
>
> Hmm, maybe, yeah.
>
>>> If we're going to use HTML as the basis for the schema we might as
>>> well stop nesting <section>s and go back to <h2>, <h3>, ... <hN>.
>>> (Figuring out how to convert from the latter to the former in XSL took
>>> a fair bit of effort when writing lyx2rfc!)
>>
>> But then you loose information, which will be hard to recover (much harder
>> than the other way around).
>
> Actually, you lose nothing.  I know from having written XSLs to
> convert from <hN> style to nested section style.

I'm sure writing these wasn't trivial either (at least not on XSLT 1.0) :-)

> Well, actually I lie, you lose one pathological thing: section
> contents following sub-sections!  (This pathological case is
> impossible in <hN> style, and we cannot represent it in any output
> formats we've had to date because we don't indent section content.
> It's come up before for xml2rfc.  Isn't it nice that this error is not
> possible in <hN> style?  Should we infer from this that nested
> <section> style is flawed?)

It's invalid in xml2rfc.

> Also, now that I know how to easily and reliably convert from <hN>
> style to nested <section> style (though it requires XSLT 2.0) we don't

(see :-)

> need to think that it's too hard to do that conversion.
>
>> You may want to check the mailing list archives for a previous epic thread
>> about this topic.
>
> Maybe, but it sounds painful :(

That it will be.




More information about the rfc-interest mailing list