[rfc-i] Internet Draft Format

Tim Bray tbray at textuality.com
Sat Mar 24 11:01:54 PDT 2012

What’s wrong with the current HTML output?  Looks OK to me on a
variety of screens and prints just fine.

XML is not a viable delivery format... why raise that red herring?  At
the moment, the difficulty of editing XML and HTML is about equal,
unless there’s some tooling I don’t know about. -T

On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Joe Hildebrand <jhildebr at cisco.com> wrote:
> 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.
>>  -Tim
>> 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
>>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>>> --
>>> Website: http://hallambaker.com/
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rfc-interest mailing list
>>> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>> _______________________________________________
>> rfc-interest mailing list
>> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
> --
> Joe Hildebrand

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list