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

Phillip Hallam-Baker hallam at gmail.com
Fri Jul 6 19:44:47 PDT 2012


I am putting together a tool for my own use at the moment. I was not
going to bother with references in the body of the text at all except
for doing something like searching through the text for some escape
sequence such as [[RFC822]] and then looking up the label at some
service or other which could pull in references in other formats as
well (bibtex, scribe, etc.)

References are done horribly in every authoring tool I have used and
Endnotes is no better. One of the problems is that they are always
done by idiots who think that the references should be in the format
of learned journals even when those formats are insane.



On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 7:14 PM, Joe Touch <touch at isi.edu> wrote:
>
>
> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>



-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list