[rfc-i] Section structure, was: RFC editing tools

Nico Williams nico at cryptonector.com
Fri Dec 7 10:33:59 PST 2012

On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
> On 2012-12-07 18:40, Nico Williams wrote:
>> ...
>> That's easy: all the front and back matter metadata tags, like
>> <author>, <organization>, <reference>.  And, of course, <rfc> itself.
>> That said, I agree that for the meat of a document (the contents, the
>> text) HTML is fine, and it's rather annoying that xml2rfc uses <t>
>> where HTML uses <p>, and so on.  If I hadn't internalized it so well
>> by now I'd have much harsher words than just "annoying"; for new users
>> xml2rfc must feel like so much a result of NIH syndrome, like so much
>> gratuitous torture.  Here it may be that the only material addition
>> xml2rfc has to bring to the table is <artwork>, and then only because
>> we like (well, I do, anyways) ASCII art.
> <pre>?

Hmm, maybe, yeah.

>> If we're going to use HTML as the basis for the schema we might as
>> well stop nesting <section>s and go back to <h2>, <h3>, ... <hN>.
>> (Figuring out how to convert from the latter to the former in XSL took
>> a fair bit of effort when writing lyx2rfc!)
> But then you loose information, which will be hard to recover (much harder
> than the other way around).

Actually, you lose nothing.  I know from having written XSLs to
convert from <hN> style to nested section style.

Well, actually I lie, you lose one pathological thing: section
contents following sub-sections!  (This pathological case is
impossible in <hN> style, and we cannot represent it in any output
formats we've had to date because we don't indent section content.
It's come up before for xml2rfc.  Isn't it nice that this error is not
possible in <hN> style?  Should we infer from this that nested
<section> style is flawed?)

Also, now that I know how to easily and reliably convert from <hN>
style to nested <section> style (though it requires XSLT 2.0) we don't
need to think that it's too hard to do that conversion.

> You may want to check the mailing list archives for a previous epic thread
> about this topic.

Maybe, but it sounds painful :(

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list