[rfc-i] Direction of the RFC Format Development effort
Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)
rse at rfc-editor.org
Wed Oct 16 08:18:29 PDT 2013
On 10/15/13 10:50 AM, George, Wes wrote:
> As far as I can tell, the current options are to either manually edit XML, or to use a WYSIWYG editor to generate markdown, or HTML, or NROFF, or to use MS Word to generate text, then translate that to XML, then translate that to canonical text and other formats using XML2RFC. I would think that one of the primary goals of the RFC format transition would be to cut some of the steps out of document production to reduce complexity and make the process more accessible for newer participants. It's unclear from the text below if this need for a WYSIWYG XML editing tool with XML2RFC integration is something that the RFC Editor and/or Tools team is already aware of and working to find a solution to or not.
As a point of clarification, the RFC Editor will have to accept text
I-Ds; not everyone is ready/willing/able to handle XML. Enough people
are conversant with XML that I think going with XML as the canonical
format makes sense, but I have to be open to accepting text as well.
Limiting the number of inputs is good, but no sense making everyone's
life more difficult by insisting on one input and one input only.
Regarding an nroffedit-like tool for XML, I agree that would be an
excellent thing. I don't think one can be created until we have a
better idea if/how the XML DTD is going to change, but someone with more
programming experience than I should speak to that point.
-Heather Flanagan, RSE
More information about the rfc-interest