[rfc-i] Reminder: xml2rfc v2 transition

Tony Hansen tony at att.com
Sat Apr 5 12:47:00 PDT 2014

On 4/5/14, 1:10 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2014-04-05 18:58, RFC Series Editor wrote:
>> As a reminder to the community, the RFC Editor will transition 
>> completely
>> to xml2rfc v2 for processing XML source for drafts in July, 2014.  That
>> means that we will not be able to benefit from your XML source if it 
>> doesn't
>> work with xml2rfc v2.  Since we do appreciate receiving XML source 
>> for the
>> drafts which are approved for publication, we encourage those who are 
>> still
>> working with a tool-chain based on xml2rfc v1 (the TCL releases) to
>> transition to v2 (the Python releases).
>> The RFC Editor will continue to accept XML source for Internet-Drafts 
>> created
>> using v1 that are approved for publication until 30 June 2014.
>> Authors may also continue to submit documents in nroff or txt.
> So if I had XML source that works in v1 but not in v2, I'd have to 
> submit nroff or txt instead? How is this actually helping anybody?
> (I understand the intent, but the way it's phrased really doesn't make 
> a lot of sense)

It's the author's choice as to how much they wish to help or hinder the 
process of getting their draft out the door. Right now the rfc editor 
spends lots of time converting from text and v1 xml to v2 xml before 
starting any further work on the draft. With this announcement, the rfc 
editor's staff is raising the bar on the quality of the xml that they 
expect to receive. If the xml doesn't work with the v2 xml2rfc, they'll 
send it back to the author to fix instead of spending time fixing it 
themselves. This certainly helps the RFC editor's staff to be more 
productive in responding to other work on their plate.

This also sets the expectations on the version of xml that other tools 
should be rendering. For example, if you use Phillip Hallam-Baker's 
markdown tools, and that tool happens to generate something that is not 
acceptable by the v2 processor (note: I'm not saying that it does 
generate anything of the sort), the onus is not on the RFC editor to fix 
up the xml.

     Tony Hansen

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list