[rfc-i] Internet Draft Format

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Sun Mar 25 02:53:40 PDT 2012


On 2012-03-25 11:40, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
>
> On 3/25/2012 3:08 AM, John Levine wrote:
>>> And I'm taking the trouble to walk through this to make the point that
>>> agreeing on "IETF canonical HTML" is going to be a big long subtle
>>> argument, and I�m not sure it�s worth having.
>>
>> I don't see the advantage of IETF canonical HTML over xml2rfc. Any
>> modern browser can render xml2rfc directly so long as it points to a
>> suitable stylesheet.
>
> That minor "so long as" is a non-trivial requirement.

Adding a single line of text is non-trivial?

> In general, I'm finding the discussion confusing at least in terms of
> the distinction between revisable form versus presentation form. I'm
> pretty sure each speaker knows the difference and is speaking carefully.
> The problem is different folk have different underlying assumptions and
> different terms. (Just to pick one example, one message referred to
> "upstream" and I have no idea what that means.
>
> I think the model we currently work within and that we want continue to
> work within is:
>
>
> +-> Revisable -+--+--> Display --+
> | | | |
> +----------------+ +---------------+--> Archive
>
>
> That is, we archive both the revisable form and the display form, though
> possibly not all of the variations.
>
> The other bits to determine in some consistent fashion:
>
> 1. How many Revisable forms do/should we support and which are they?
>
> 2. How many Display forms do/should we support and which are they?
>
>
> I believe the current answers are:
>
> 1. Revisable: Text (Ascii); xml2rfc
>
> 2. Display: Text (Ascii); ???
>
> The question on Display is because I'm not remembering what the RFC
> Editor is doing versus what the IETF tools do as "unofficial"
> enhancements. I think the current hmtl that is provided is one of the
> unofficial enhancements. I also think it is /not/ generated from the
> xml2rfc but is a post-processing hack on the ascii text.

That is true; and that's why it's mainly cosmetics on the plain text 
version, losing many of the things we can do when we transform directly 
from xml2rfc form to HTML.

Best regards, Julian


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list