[rfc-i] Internet Draft Format
tbray at textuality.com
Sat Mar 24 10:48:25 PDT 2012
FWIW, while in principle I wouldn’t be opposed to the use of some some
sort of cut-down XHTML dialect as an authoring format, I question the
return on investment. It would require a lot of work to get to
consensus, and the xml2rfc tools are perfectly viable. Are there any
tools out there that would make editing easier than what we have now
for editing the upstream XML?
HTML as a normative *delivery* format, however, seems like an
unadulterated good thing.
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 9:24 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam at gmail.com> wrote:
> Me too.
> 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
> plaintext format.
> 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
> Website: http://hallambaker.com/
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest