[rfc-i] RFC editing tools
paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Tue Dec 11 11:54:01 PST 2012
On Dec 11, 2012, at 11:43 AM, Nico Williams <nico at cryptonector.com> wrote:
> On Dec 11, 2012 12:38 PM, "Ted Lemon" <mellon at fugue.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 11, 2012, at 1:27 PM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman at vpnc.org> wrote:
> > > The RFC Editor should do this by funding software development. If they do not, then things get ugly quickly.
> > A tool to convert between two canonical formats is a waste of effort. We should have just one canonical format. I happen to prefer XML, for reasons I've stated, but I would rather we settled on HTML than that we decided not to choose.
> I read what Paul wrote to be that the RFC-Editor should fund development of a canonical format ASAP so we can avoid having a surfeit of formats. XML is a great canonical format because it's easy to use XSLT to do most if the heavy lifting in converting to/from any other formats, so most of us seen to agree that the canonical format should be XML.
Nope, but Ted's not right either. There will be just one canonical format. However, the RFC Editor might/should accept input in more formats than just the one canonical format, as they do now. If xml2rfc++ becomes the new canonical format, and many people want to develop Internet Drafts in HTML, the RFC Editor should allow that as an input format as long as it is constrained in such a way as to be a minimal burden on the post-submission process. An HTML profile that is a straight conversion to and from the canonical XML profile would be logical. In that case, the RFC Editor should fund the creation of the conversion tool as a benefit to the RFC-writing community.
Of course, vice versa if an HTML profile is chosen as the canonical publication format and many draft writers want to write in XML.
Once again: there will be one canonical output format, many non-canonical output formats, *and we don't know what the input formats are yet*.
More information about the rfc-interest