[rfc-i] New proposal for "canonical and others"
paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Wed Jun 20 09:15:34 PDT 2012
On Jun 20, 2012, at 8:42 AM, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) wrote:
> On 6/20/12 8:29 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> On Jun 20, 2012, at 8:25 AM, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) wrote:
>>> Indeed, I am expecting that there will be additional tools for
>>> converting the RFC in to several different formats. I am not decided on
>>> whether those conversions should happen from the source files or the
>>> canonical file. I'm thinking the former would be more flexible?
>> Not being pedantic, but what exactly do you mean by "the source file"?
>> --Paul Hoffman
> Right now, it's nroff and XML (with the XML being converted to nroff by
> the editors).
That's *two* source file*s*. The distinction in important.
My draft proposes that there is one file that is both the single source file and the single canonical file: there is absolutely no difference between the two. The fact that the current tools used by the RFC Editor go from XML to nroff is a side-effect of the requirements for the output format, not a good design for moving forwards.
> It's the file from which the final .txt output is generated.
...as well as the file from which the current RFCEd-generated PDFs and ToolsTeam-generated HTML files are generated. There might be interim steps along the way, but the source/canonical file should be the single root for all generated files.
More information about the rfc-interest