[rfc-i] Internet Draft Format
hallam at gmail.com
Sat Mar 24 09:24:36 PDT 2012
I generally download the XML and generate HTML from that. It would be
much easier if the site tools did this.
If we are going to test out a new format it is going to require the
ability to upload the HTML though as I don't want the new format to be
limited to the capabilities of XML2RFC which is in turn limited by the
Round tripping the source files is a key win that I would want to
achieve. We can do that by extending XML2RFC of course.
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 6:12 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
> On 2012-03-24 11:02, Fred Baker wrote:
>> Let me ask a relatively straightforward question along these lines that
>> could be actionable within a finite timeframe.
>> Right now, the Secretariat will post drafts in four formats: .txt, .xml,
>> .ps, and .pdf. The XML files are primarily for the convenience of the RFC
>> Editor and communication within a working group and among co-authors - if
>> .txt and .xml are uploaded together, there is little question what XML file
>> produced the .txt. .pdf and .ps are considered auxiliary; you may upload
>> them, but they are not normative.
>> It seems to me that the .html file produced by the xml2html XLS script
>> could be uploaded in a similar manner, and treated in the same way we treat
>> .pdf and .ps. What doing so would permit is experimentation with the format
>> as a documentation convention, which would in turn let us experiment with
>> community-provided tools etc. If the experiment works out, there are some
>> further discussions we could have with tools-discuss and the IAOC.
>> Am I crazy?
> No :-) It's exactly what I've been asking for for some time now.
> Best regards, Julian
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest