[rfc-i] Proposed way forwards on backward compatibility with v2

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Tue Feb 18 07:53:21 PST 2014


On 2014-02-18 16:43, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
> On 2/18/14 2:20 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> On 2014-02-17 22:35, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
>>> At the end of the day, I want to get my draft to look the way I want it
>>> to look. (Within the constraints of what IdNits allows.) If I can't,
>>> then I'm going to be mad.
>>
>> Then you're going to be mad :-)
>>
>>> Its best if I can achieve that using "structural" elements. If I can't,
>>> then I make a tradeoff between getting "close enough" to my preference
>>> using structural elements, and "hacking" it with explicit presentation
>>> elements. But it is good to have enough tools to make the choice.
>>
>> The only "presentation" elements that we have are those controlling line
>> breaks and vertical whitespace. I have my doubts that these will be
>> sufficient to achieve exactly the look and feel you want in HTML.
>
> I don't really care about the HTML output from xml2rfc - I don't like
> it. My preference is for the HTMLified text output. That looks like the
> text format (so I know what the text form will look) and yet gives me
> links to sections and all the active stuff at the top.

What the text form will look like really won't be important anymore once 
we switch to the new format. In particular, optimizing vertical space 
(page breaks etc) will be a non-goal.

> So if that format looks good to me I'm happy. If you prefer some other
> format, and it doesn't look as good, then that is your problem, not
> mine. :-)
>
> That said, *in principle* I would prefer another format with better
> graphics. IMO ascii art is the serious limitation to what I can convey
> in a draft. (I am fond of dense UML class diagrams.) But moving to
> another format that isn't reasonably representable as text causes all
> sorts of process problems. (E.g., The 3gpp document change management
> process drives me nuts.)

We already decided that we're switching to a format the can contain 
better graphics formats.

> Since we are unlikely to abandon plain text, I'm satisfied, as an
> author, to concentrate on getting the text format to look good.

AFAIU, plain text will continue to be generated, however it will be 
limited in that it won't necessarily contain all information that is in 
the actual RFC.

Best regards, Julian


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list