[rfc-i] RFCxx99 series should not be discontinued
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Thu Oct 10 09:51:44 PDT 2013
On 2013-10-10 18:40, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Russ Housley <housley at vigilsec.com
> <mailto:housley at vigilsec.com>> wrote:
> >> So instead of writing my references generator for RFCs so it
> pulls the
> >> references out of the xml.resource.org <http://xml.resource.org>
> <http://xml.resource.org> files
> >> and caches them, I should allow folk to download the XML index
> and cache
> >> that. It would eliminate most of the calls to resolve references.
> >> ...
> > rfc-index.xml is missing information to create <reference>
> elements (dates and author name granularity come to mind).
> Continuing to publish RFC xx99 will not solve this concern.
> I would support updates too rfc-index.xml to include the information
> to build a complete reference.
> Would it be possible for IETF and W3C to agree on a standard approach?
> Julian is having to screen scrape some of the info for his summaries
> which suggests to me that there is a problem with the W3C generator. But
> presumably W3C has an incentive to fix this as well.
Are you referring to my hack that tries to make the author ordering
correct? That's a shortcoming of the W3C publication format.
Best regards, Julian
More information about the rfc-interest