[rfc-i] Proposed new RFC submission requirements

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Fri May 25 06:47:25 PDT 2012

On 2012-05-25 15:39, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote:
> On 2012/05/25 2:01, Tim Bray wrote:
>> I think the xml2rfc format is irritating and diverges from common
>> document-markup practice in several jarring ways. I also think it's Good
>> Enough, and a long history of “really minor” document-redesign efforts
>> turning into extended painfests leads me to think we should just stay
>> with
>> it.
> I agree that a trickle of minor changes is really painful. But I'd
> personally *strongly* prefer if we could fix the major, well-known
> irritations (starting with section headings in attributes) together with
> the other fixes that we will need anyway (alternative names/addresses,...).

+1 on small, incremental changes for now.

The trouble is that it seems that the RFC Editor still hasn't 
transitioned to xml2rfc (although it was supposed to be ready around one 
year ago). This means that we essentially have to maintain two code 
bases, and it's not clear whether we have volunteers for that.

Best regards, Julian

PS: and yes, I'll keep maintaining rfc2629.xslt, but that only helps for 
generating HTML and PDF.

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list