[rfc-i] Proposed new RFC submission requirements

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Thu May 24 09:43:27 PDT 2012


On 2012-05-24 18:35, Joe Hildebrand wrote:
> On 5/24/12 10:07 AM, "Paul Hoffman"<paul.hoffman at vpnc.org>  wrote:
>
>>  From the above, it sounds like you believe that the submission requirement for
>> RFCs would change from "whatever the RFC Editor can handle and turn into
>> something they can use their tools on" to "marked up (including all metadata)
>> HTML" or "XML like what is needed by xml2rfc, but with more metadata marking".
>> Is that correct?
>
> I bet the XML from xml2rfc has *most* of the metadata marking that's needed,
> aside from some classification of example types (ASN.1 vs. ABNF, etc.),

There's a type parameter on <artwork>. rfc2629.xslt uses that.

> alternate author name representation (which is in Julian's version, I
> think).  *IF* we want to deal with images (please let's don't open that can

Not yet :-)

> of worms back up in this thread), then that would need to be added.  There
> are likely 5-6 other things that would need to be tweaked in the xml2rfc
> format.

xml2rfc already supports images.

> ...

Best regards , Julian


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list