[rfc-i] Minutes posted
sginoza at amsl.com
Tue Nov 13 15:35:10 PST 2012
Just a clarification. Authors/Editors don't usually ask the RFC Production Center for the "final edited edition" of the doc they are revising. They most often ask specifically for the XML source file. We provide the XML file if it's requested, and include a disclaimer that the XML file may not match (exactly) the published text file (e.g., pagination).
If there is an XML file provided, then we always go through the final step of converting XML files into NROFF, making any additional tweaks, and then producing the final text file from the NROFF file.
On Nov 10, 2012, at 4:27 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> 2. If the revisable format changes from nroff, RFC authors will need WYSIWYG editing tools at least as easy to use as NroffEdit.
> Point #2 presumes that the current revisable format is nroff. We hear mixed stories from AMS on this, mostly because we hear what we want to hear. If I tell the RFC Editor that I am about to do a revision on RFC 6722 and I want the final edited edition, they will send me the XML, not the nroff. Some of us on this list know that they, in fact, probably went through an additional step of converting XML to nroff and mucked with the nroff, but to the public, XML is the visible revisable format.
More information about the rfc-interest