[rfc-i] issue: canonical formats

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Wed Jun 6 12:23:35 PDT 2012


On 2012-06-06 20:14, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 6 Jun 2012, at 13:27 , Julian Reschke wrote:
>
>>> ... So in practice, reading the XML2RFC source requires running the XML2RFC tool. ...
>
>> No. If it's archived without external dependencies (which should be the case anyway), you can read it in every browser using rfc2629.xslt.
>
> Hm, I've had inconsistent results with that. (And it always feels a bit like using your backup parachute...)

Well, if you can tell me what you considered "inconsistent" I can try to 
address it.

>>> ... In the past, there have been cases where the current version of the XML2RFC format couldn't be transformed into usable output by the current(ly widely available) of the XML2RFC tool. ...
>
>> Example?
>
> This whole thing where the legal boilerplate was changed and wasn't correctly handled by the online version of the tool several years ago, the details escape me.

Yes, that was a bug which took some time to fix because the TCL version 
was more or less abandoned at that time.

>>> ... Also, the tool has little or no official support so it could fall by the wayside at any time.
>
>> So why did the IETF just invest money to rewrite it?
>
> I didn't know they had so I don't know why.

:-)




More information about the rfc-interest mailing list