[rfc-i] Reminder: xml2rfc v2 transition

Paul Kyzivat pkyzivat at alum.mit.edu
Sat Apr 5 21:41:48 PDT 2014


On 4/5/14 4:13 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2014-04-05 21:47, Tony Hansen wrote:
>> ...
>> 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.
>> ...
>
> I understand this, but if the outcome is that existing XML isn't
> submitted and the author sends plain text instead, it's not helpful.
>
> That being said: v2 is supposed to process the same files as v1. The
> only difference I'm aware of is that v2 might be more picky with respect
> to broken (non-wellformed) XML or invalid XML (which is a good thing!).
> If this is what this announcement is about, it needs to be clarified.

I have had to spend a considerable amount of time to get some v1 xml 
files to work with the v2 xml2rfc. Still, it probably makes more sense 
for the author to do it than to leave it to the RFC editor.

If some author is unable or unwilling to do that work, then the editor 
will have to decide if they want to start with txt or with a v1 xml file.

In any case this should be a short-lived problem. Drafts that start out 
with v2 won't have that problem.

	Thanks,
	Paul



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list