[rfc-i] Character sets, was Comments on draft-iab-rfcformat

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Wed Dec 19 23:49:29 PST 2012


On 2012-12-20 03:55, John Levine wrote:
>> I am also curious as to why more individuals have not chosen this
>> option, but I don't think there is enough information to assign a
>> conclusion.  My own perception is that it could be people just don't
>> realize that option, OR they feel it's more of a hoop than they want
>> to jump through given all the other things they've done to get the I-D
>> to an RFC publication, OR there is not a need.
>
> Speaking only for myself, the main reason is that I didn't realize it
> was an option.
>
> Now that I do realize it's an option, I'd say the main deterrent is a
> lack of tools.  From comments in recent PDF RFCs, I see that 5059 was
> produced using groff, 5317 by Mac Word, 5598 by Apache FOP, and 6687
> with LaTeX and some add-ons.  While I'm perfectly capable of making
> groff do whatever I need it to, and FOP looks like it'd be fun to
> learn if I had some spare time and might be interesting to try to plug
> into the back of xml2rfc, neither seems like a great use of my time
> until I need to do an RFC that just won't make any sense without
> complex graphics and non-Latin text.

<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2629xslt/rfc2629xslt.html#output.pdf>

Best regards, Julian


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list