[rfc-i] RFC editing tools
paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Fri Dec 7 10:53:58 PST 2012
On Dec 7, 2012, at 10:32 AM, Ted Lemon <mellon at fugue.com> wrote:
> On Dec 7, 2012, at 1:25 PM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman at vpnc.org> wrote:
>> That's not true: the metadata will be processed by the RFC Editor to be made available in the RFC itself. It's just like xml2rfc, except that the input is something that you could view most of in a browser to start with.
> Right, then what you are talking about is a presentation form, not a representation form.
...or both. We're talking about making it both.
> The representation is what the RFC editor processes into the presentation.
> If the presentation form is canonical, then transformations done on it are expensive, because you have to reverse the translation from representation to presentation (since the representation isn't canonical, and the presentation is).
Ummm, no. If the form is both a presentation and a representation, the "produce the presentation form" tools takes the representation form and spits out whatever it wants. Same as it ever was.
>> Again: please show an example of "them" so we can understand what you are objecting to.
> Sections 4.5 and 4.6 of the draft are good examples of what I'm talking about. I think it's no accident that these sections are currently incomplete.
Are you expecting the author and references to appear without any formatting in the final document? That seems... odd. Why wouldn't the RFC Editor's tools format those to follow all the picky preferences we seem to impose? These are exactly the things we expect to be formatted by the tools.
More information about the rfc-interest