[rfc-i] Canonical input formats
hallam at gmail.com
Tue Jul 31 17:49:56 PDT 2012
That is kind of an important distinction as it means that the nroff
edits are essentially tweakage of the caveman format. Caveman format
creates the nroff requirement, not the other way round.
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 5:02 PM, RFC Editor <rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org> wrote:
> Just a correction on this part:
>> AUTH48 comments are applied to the nroff input, and the thing "just
>> before text" is "nroff".
> The RPC uses the XML file to edit the document until the
> authors approve the document for publication during AUTH48. It is at
> that point that the document is converted to NROFF and final updates
> made (typically page breaking).
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 11:47:29PM +0000, Fred Baker wrote:
>> On Jul 31, 2012, at 11:40 AM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
>> > You see where I'm going. It would be nice if the RFC Editor could advise the community what input format they use
>> I asked Alice, considering her a person likely to know the answer. Their current output format is "text", and the tool they use to produce it is nroff. If a document is given to them in XML form, they do most of the editing in XML, but at the last instant it is transmogrified to nroff, AUTH48 comments are applied to the nroff input, and the thing "just before text" is "nroff".
>> One thing we might consider in figuring out how to change that is how our proposals relate to their work flow and problem set. I'll bet that among the tooling changes needed if we want them to not do that will relate to the tools they use. I suspect they use nroff for the same reason I personally use XML2RFC and Joe likes HTML: It's familiar to them, is supported by tools they know how to use, and at least mostly works.
>> rfc-interest mailing list
>> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest