[rfc-i] Proposed way forwards on backward compatibility with v2

Riccardo Bernardini framefritti at gmail.com
Tue Feb 18 06:16:49 PST 2014

On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Ted Lemon <mellon at fugue.com> wrote:
> On Feb 18, 2014, at 6:53 AM, Riccardo Bernardini <framefritti at gmail.com> wrote:
>> So, +1 to promoting the use the abstract structure, but keeping
>> low-level commands for the occasional "hand-hacking".
> Hand hacking is going to be illusory.  If we support it, you will use it, and think it worked, and then someone will read the draft with a different style sheet and it'll be completely broken.   You, the author, are not the arbiter of style in RFCs, and if you try to be it will end badly.   Ultimately your document is an IETF product, not your product.   Although of course you can set up your own style sheet on your web site and present your RFCs exactly as you like.
> That said, there are things that the markup tools do badly that ought to get fixed. List spacing should be controllable; sometimes you have a list that wants to have no inter-element spacing, and sometimes you have a list where that will look bad.  So there needs to be an attribute that specifies which way you want it.   I'm sure there are other similar cases; that's the one that springs to mind.

Maybe I did not explained myself correctly, since it seems to me that
we are saying the same thing.

To me  "Occasional hand-hacking" meant "apply  corrections by hand in
those cases when the formatting tools do not a good work."  Actually,
I am a strong proponent of the "abstract" approach (I also bring it a
step further, defining macros that "hide" the notation conventions.
Please note, I *do not* suggest to allow for such a thing for xm2rfc,
it is just what I do...).  Nevertheless, every now and then even I am
forced to do hand corrections.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list