[rfc-i] Internet Draft Format
jhildebr at cisco.com
Sat Mar 24 10:58:25 PDT 2012
As long as the HTML that is being generated is significantly better than
what xml2rfc generates today, it doesn't matter to me how it is generated.
I would suggest that *requiring* the use of XML as a precursor effectively
makes the XML the delivery format, which I think we should probably avoid.
There are those that hate editing XML; it would be nice to give those folks
a path that might lead to different tooling for them one day.
On 3/24/12 11:48 AM, "Tim Bray" <tbray at textuality.com> wrote:
> FWIW, while in principle I wouldn¹t 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>
>> 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>
>>> 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
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest