[rfc-i] Reminder: xml2rfc v2 transition

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Sat Apr 5 13:16:17 PDT 2014

It might be helpful to remind the populace of the ways in
which v2 is more strict than v1. I also find that the web
service at http://xml.resource.org/ is a little inscrutable
about version numbers. It just says 'beta', and you have to
poke around a bit to determine that it's v2. Then the phrase
'If you prefer to use the currently released version,...'
leads you to v1. That's plain wrong.


On 06/04/2014 07:47, Tony Hansen wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list