[rfc-i] [IAB] [Rsoc] Archival format to rfc-interest and the IAB

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Mon Mar 2 11:56:47 PST 2020


On 02.03.2020 20:28, John R. Levine wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Mar 2020, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> Well, we have a growing number of documents published in a "canonical"
>> XML format that is not canonical and has no documentation.
>>
>> The more we have of these, the more we'll have to fix later on.
>
> Henrik says, I believe correctly, that the changes have been backward
> compatible so the current grammar is a superset of the original, and all
> of the XML RFCs published to date are valid with the current grammar and
> render with the current version of xml2rfc.

That is probably true.

> Having said that, I also agree that the situation is not great.  The
> RSOC has tasked me with documenting the changes (starting with the
> deltas to the grammar which I do have) and coming up with a process to
> control future changes.

Note that the changes are not constrained to the grammar. For instance,
xml2rfc added support for special line break characters, and then later
on for <br>. Is the other thing going to backed out?

> I think there are changes we'll want to back out so later this year
> we'll need to consider what's the best way to retroactively adjust the
> XML coding (not the text) and make it clear what we did.

Absolutely.

And to get there, we have to work on rfc7991bis.

Best regards, Julian


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list