[rfc-i] [xml2rfc-dev] Preparing for allowing v3 submissions into the repository (was Re: Alternate artwork vocabulary and post preptool)

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Thu Feb 7 12:38:19 PST 2019


On 07.02.2019 21:33, Robert Sparks wrote:
> 
> On 2/7/19 2:24 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> On 07.02.2019 21:07, Robert Sparks wrote:
>>> The change proposed in this thread (to allow the preptool to 
>>> incorporate SVG from external files as artwork rather than a data 
>>> URI) seems right, and important.
>>>
>>> The IESG is ready to allow v3 submissions into the repository as soon 
>>> as the tooling is ready. The tooling is very close. As noted in the 
>>> thread, our goal is to have the submission tool accept a standalone 
>>> file (rather than solve how to allow submission of multiple components.)
>>>
>>> I'm asking that this change be made to the toolchain.
>>>
>>> RjS
>>
>> Could you please clarify what you mean by "v3"?
>>
>> 1. The thing described in RFC 7991?
>>
>> 2. The thing described in draft-iab-rfc7991bis-01?
>>
>> 3. The vocabulary that happens to be implemented by the current 
>> version of xml2rfc?
> 
> Practically, right now, I mean 3.
> 
> I do remember that we need to reconcile as implemented with what's in 
> the bis draft, but that's not what this message is about.
> ...

a) It would be good to know that the actual plan to reconcile things is.

b) As far as I understand, until we have an answer to a), "v3" is a 
moving (and not completely documented) target. As such, accepting 
submissions seems to be premature, unless there's a clarification about 
what it would mean for a submitted document becoming broken after a 
future change in "v3".

Best regards, Julian


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list