[rfc-i] IETF RFC format <-> W3C pubrules

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Wed May 9 06:11:21 PDT 2012

On 2012-05-09 14:57, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Julian Reschke<julian.reschke at gmx.de>  wrote:
>> On 2012-05-09 13:12, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>>> I note that as is often the case when the blatantly obvious is said we
>>> have disagreement by unresolved reference.
>>> If you can't give a reason for a disagreement then you should probably
>>> think a bit before posting and wait until you can state what the
>>> disagreement is.
>>> We have two standards bodies here. What is the reason to NOT have a
>>> common standard?
>>> BTW the only 'tools' I needed to produce W3C docs was the bit of code
>>> to rip out the style crud produced by Microsoft Word and another that
>>> produced the index.
>>> I used the same tools to produce W3C and OASIS docs.
>> ...which means: little metadata or no metadata to rely on, right?
> I am not sure quite what you mean there.

A way to programatically extract all the information xml2rfc captures 
for us, such as author names, WG information, "updates"/"obsoletes" 
information, references, ABNF, copyright status, ...

> One of the reasons I think support for metadata sucks in every tool in
> existence is that they are all wysiwyg and metadata is something you
> don't see by definition.

Yes. One of the reasons I do not like WYSISYG tools.

> What I want is a tool that supports an editing mode that is NEITHER
> WYSIWYG or raw markup. I want to see my text in properly formatted
> paragraphs that also disclose the semantic markup.
> So if I had transcluded some chunk o' boilerplate there would be some
> sort of mark at the start saying<include:ipr2012>  followed by the
> transcluded text. So I could read the editing copy and see immediately
> what is going on.
> I only want to see metadata that matters, not every<P>  tag.
> It would be really nice if there was a toolset out there that
> generated and made use of a common set of metadata. But that has not
> happened.
> For example, it should be possible to cut an paste a citation from one
> document to another in such a way that tools are able to reformat it
> to apply whatever deranged nonsense of a citation format is required
> at the other end. I don't see that as existing.
> Pretty much every tool there is to manage citations sucks. I have
> tried end note and it sucks because it is an afterthought. The
> citation handling in Word is stovepiped to a few formats that are all
> stupid and few other things bother at all.
> It really should not be difficult, A 'database' of citations should
> require no more than an HTML document with a list of citations.
> It should be possible to drop in a citation by just typing in
> cite:rfc1234 or something similar.

For xml2rfc, we are very close to that (at least for standard references).

Best regards, Julian

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list