[rfc-i] IETF RFC format <-> W3C pubrules

Phillip Hallam-Baker hallam at gmail.com
Wed May 9 05:57:59 PDT 2012


On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
> On 2012-05-09 13:12, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>>
>> I note that as is often the case when the blatantly obvious is said we
>> have disagreement by unresolved reference.
>>
>> If you can't give a reason for a disagreement then you should probably
>> think a bit before posting and wait until you can state what the
>> disagreement is.
>>
>> We have two standards bodies here. What is the reason to NOT have a
>> common standard?
>>
>>
>> BTW the only 'tools' I needed to produce W3C docs was the bit of code
>> to rip out the style crud produced by Microsoft Word and another that
>> produced the index.
>>
>> I used the same tools to produce W3C and OASIS docs.
>
>
> ...which means: little metadata or no metadata to rely on, right?

I am not sure quite what you mean there.

One of the reasons I think support for metadata sucks in every tool in
existence is that they are all wysiwyg and metadata is something you
don't see by definition.

What I want is a tool that supports an editing mode that is NEITHER
WYSIWYG or raw markup. I want to see my text in properly formatted
paragraphs that also disclose the semantic markup.

So if I had transcluded some chunk o' boilerplate there would be some
sort of mark at the start saying <include:ipr2012> followed by the
transcluded text. So I could read the editing copy and see immediately
what is going on.

I only want to see metadata that matters, not every <P> tag.


It would be really nice if there was a toolset out there that
generated and made use of a common set of metadata. But that has not
happened.

For example, it should be possible to cut an paste a citation from one
document to another in such a way that tools are able to reformat it
to apply whatever deranged nonsense of a citation format is required
at the other end. I don't see that as existing.

Pretty much every tool there is to manage citations sucks. I have
tried end note and it sucks because it is an afterthought. The
citation handling in Word is stovepiped to a few formats that are all
stupid and few other things bother at all.


It really should not be difficult, A 'database' of citations should
require no more than an HTML document with a list of citations.

It should be possible to drop in a citation by just typing in
cite:rfc1234 or something similar.


-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list