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

Paul Kyzivat pkyzivat at alum.mit.edu
Tue Feb 18 07:43:11 PST 2014

On 2/18/14 2:20 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2014-02-17 22:35, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
>> At the end of the day, I want to get my draft to look the way I want it
>> to look. (Within the constraints of what IdNits allows.) If I can't,
>> then I'm going to be mad.
> Then you're going to be mad :-)
>> Its best if I can achieve that using "structural" elements. If I can't,
>> then I make a tradeoff between getting "close enough" to my preference
>> using structural elements, and "hacking" it with explicit presentation
>> elements. But it is good to have enough tools to make the choice.
> The only "presentation" elements that we have are those controlling line
> breaks and vertical whitespace. I have my doubts that these will be
> sufficient to achieve exactly the look and feel you want in HTML.

I don't really care about the HTML output from xml2rfc - I don't like 
it. My preference is for the HTMLified text output. That looks like the 
text format (so I know what the text form will look) and yet gives me 
links to sections and all the active stuff at the top.

So if that format looks good to me I'm happy. If you prefer some other 
format, and it doesn't look as good, then that is your problem, not 
mine. :-)

That said, *in principle* I would prefer another format with better 
graphics. IMO ascii art is the serious limitation to what I can convey 
in a draft. (I am fond of dense UML class diagrams.) But moving to 
another format that isn't reasonably representable as text causes all 
sorts of process problems. (E.g., The 3gpp document change management 
process drives me nuts.)

Since we are unlikely to abandon plain text, I'm satisfied, as an 
author, to concentrate on getting the text format to look good.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list