[rfc-i] draft-iab-html-rfc-02: references
Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)
jhildebr at cisco.com
Tue Mar 1 09:57:35 PST 2016
On 3/1/16, 10:50 AM, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
>I think you're making assumptions about formatters that may not be
>correct. For instance, *I* am maintaining a formatter (and plan to
>support V3), but I'll not be able to rely on the preptool (for entirely
Remember, the output of the preptool is the *canonical* document that we will publish as the RFC's XML. New output formatters that we come up with years from now will use those documents as input, and we'd like them to get the output as close to today's formatters as is practical. In particular, all of the section numbers MUST come out the same.
>We may have terminology problem.
I thought you and I had been using this terminology for several years successfully. If we really have a disconnect, I'd love the chance to chat and clear up any misunderstandings.
>For me a "formatter" is something that takes the user's V3 source and
>generates output from that. You seem to propose a formatter that does
>two passes, a preparation pass and a formatting pass. That's an entirely
>fine way to implement the formatting (and yes, the prep stage is needed
>to get the canonical format for archival), but it's not the only way to
I think what we said at some point was that formatters had to act *as if* they had run the preptool steps, but they didn't have to actually output the prep'd format.
More information about the rfc-interest