[rfc-i] Does the canonical RFC format need to be "readable" by developers and others?

Joe Touch touch at isi.edu
Fri Jul 6 16:14:03 PDT 2012



On 7/6/2012 4:05 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> What information is in XML2RFC that you think is both unnecessary for
> RFC generation and cannot be inserted by a format converter?
>
> Its a horrid document format, but the only parts that are really
> excessive as far as structure goes are the references which are
> something I would farm out to a processor anyway.

It'd be useful to see a list of the minimal structure *required* for RFC 
generation.

XML2RFC is definitely not that structure, IMO, at the least because of 
the structure inside references. But regardless, the key is to define 
that structure first - which hasn't been done.

Joe

>
> On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Joe Touch <touch at isi.edu> wrote:
>> -1
>>
>> As per my other note.
>>
>> My concern is that XML2RFC XML requires more information than structured
>> HTML, and that this would unnecessarily limit authors.
>>
>> Joe
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/6/2012 3:44 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>>>
>>> I think that all the rational presentation/authoring requirements
>>> raised can actually be met quite simply by simply flipping the
>>> internal RFC editor format from nroff to XML2RFC.
>>>
>>> Let people generate their text any way they feel like provided that it
>>> captures all the information necessary and they can convert it into
>>> XML2RFC for submission.
>>>
>>> Let people read their documents in any format that XML2RFC can convert
>>> into.
>>>
>>>
>>> That then just leaves us with the question of included documents in
>>> other formats (drawings, images, code etc) but I am happy to leave
>>> those for a phase 2 even.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 6:37 PM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman at vpnc.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Jul 6, 2012, at 3:33 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> As a practical matter, I think having a conversion from the XML to
>>>>> HTML that does not discard information will prove very useful.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> +1. Fortunately, that is trivial both to do and to test.
>>>>
>>>> --Paul Hoffman
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> rfc-interest mailing list
>>>> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list