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

Nico Williams nico at cryptonector.com
Tue Feb 18 10:20:44 PST 2014

On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat at alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> If I had any hope of rendering useful UML diagrams in drafts, then I would
> *prefer* not to manually convert them from a UML tool to some other drawing
> tool for incorporation in a draft.

I see no reason that <artwork> couldn't have an attribute (it already
does, sort of) for describing the type of the artwork source, with
xml2rfc using external converters (if available) to render.  It'd be
nice too if <artwork> had an alternative representation attribute as


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list