[rfc-i] Publishing more formats before the cutoff

Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) rse at rfc-editor.org
Fri Feb 28 09:05:00 PST 2014


On 2/28/14 8:24 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On Feb 28, 2014, at 8:03 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
> 
>> I was talking about pre-cutover RFCs for which we do have "good" XML source (in that when processed we get something identical or close to identical to the published plain text).
> 
> That was completely unclear from what you said. The thread you commented in was about two questions in the FAQ that are about what happens *after* the cutoff.
> 
>> My proposal was to publish those, alongside with their HTML/PDF versions.
>>
>> Heather didn't like that, so my revised proposal was to keep the XML, and just publish the HTML.
> 
> I suspect Heather had the same problem I did: we thought you were talking about the topic in the thread, not proposing what to do before the cutoff.
> 

FWIW, I understood what Julian was asking regarding the pre-cutover RFCs
and reproducing them.

>> And yes, the archived XML of published RFCs already is available on request, and nobody has suggested to change that.
> 
> Right.
> 
> So, I think it is just fine for the RFC Editor to start to publish non-canonical versions of the XML and HTML before the cutoff: in fact, doing so would probably help the community be more prepared for the cutoff.
> 

I can see the argument for publishing new HTML, and I think it matches
what some of the folks in the RPC would like to see happen as well.  I
am extremely reticent about publishing the old XML files; they are not
canonical, nor are they actually a complete representation of the
finished RFC.  I think the confusion factor is larger than folks are
giving it credit for, and the amount of work that would be required to
get them in a shareable shape that matches the published RFC is not the
best use of resources.

I need to give some further thought as to if/how this could be done
while being sensitive to the resources available.

-Heather






More information about the rfc-interest mailing list