[rfc-i] New Version Notification for draft-flanagan-plaintext-00.txt
pkyzivat at alum.mit.edu
Sun Jun 29 11:43:17 PDT 2014
On 6/29/14 12:47 AM, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) wrote:
> On 6/28/14, 8:50 PM, "Dave Crocker" <dhc at dcrocker.net> wrote:
>> In addition, I find working on a draft xml2rfc version, which does not
>> have numbering explicit in the text, to be challenging, when everyone
>> offers change suggestions using section (or, worse, page) numbers. So
>> having folks using a value that is actually embedded in the editable
>> version would be nice.
>> On the other hand, it /is/ another bit of mechanism and would need some
>> care in generating new numbers after document revision. Or, I suppose,
>> that could be done as part of the submission process (if needed)?
> There has been some discussion of the xml format the comes out of the RPC
> having had a little extra processing applied to it to do things like add
> auto-generated anchors, expand entities, remove comments and PIs, etc.
I had been thinking that *that* stuff was only going to be done during
the RFC publishing process. But these paragraph numbers must work for
drafts - more important than for RFCs.
If the numbers are to be in the xml, then it must be some postprocessing
step it strip the old ones and insert new ones. It could be done by the
draft submission tool as part of accepting a draft. But then people will
have to adjust their individual editing processes to align with this -
remember to fetch the xml from the ietf site rather than working on the
last one they submitted - in order to have the correct paragraph numbers
This isn't a showstopper. But I think the implications need to be
understood before deciding.
More information about the rfc-interest