[rfc-i] Pagination requirements
touch at isi.edu
Thu May 24 13:43:48 PDT 2012
On 5/24/2012 1:39 PM, Joe Hildebrand wrote:
> On 5/24/12 2:35 PM, "Joe Touch"<touch at isi.edu> wrote:
>> On 5/24/2012 10:44 AM, Joe Hildebrand wrote:
>>> One thing that would help this would be to edit HTML instead of xml2rfc's
>>> XML format. The tooling would flow much more naturally.
>> I haven't seen HTML editing "tools" that are anything but rudimentary;
>> editing in a full-scale word processor is more reasonable, but more
>> difficult to map to HTML markings.
> Although I somewhat agree with this statement, I'm not sure what to do about
> it. I don't think we should pick a word processor's format as the one we
> use for submission.
I think that should be considered as *one* of the possible submission
formats - not the sole one.
> If you're able to generate output with Word today, I
> bet someone can change the back-end of that to generate something else.
I was the one who wrote that back-end, updating it from a preliminary
version that wasn't full-featured. I can revise that within the
limitations of what Word can do - I'm worried about needing to insert a
CSS file, or generate custom tags per se. I'm not saying we can't do it,
but I want to know we can before we toss it out the window.
More information about the rfc-interest