[rfc-i] draft-flanagan-rfc-framework-02 composition tools

Paul Kyzivat pkyzivat at alum.mit.edu
Fri Oct 31 05:48:31 PDT 2014


On 10/31/14 7:20 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
> +1
>
> Having the datatracker archive the editable version is an important part
> of the process.
> Maybe it should be changed to take whatever type the submitter used be
> it xml, nroff, doc or whatever?

Yes, I think it should.

Currently I make it a practice to always check in the xml with every 
draft that I submit. But clearly not everyone does that. It works for me 
now because I edit the xml directly. If I were editing something else 
and generating the xml, then I would want whatever it is.

Submitting that stuff should be optional, but recommended.

	Thanks,
	Paul

> Stewart
>
> On 30/10/2014 19:58, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
>> On 10/30/14 2:41 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>>
>>> On a more serious note, it is interesting to see that we have two
>>> converters from markdown (and another one from a generic outliner
>>> format like Emacs’ org-mode), but none from MS-OOX (at least that I’m
>>> aware of).
>>> Since MS-OOX is documented in ISO/IEC 29500, it should be a small
>>> matter of programming to build this.  Add a little visual basic for
>>> the structured parts (author info and other front matter,
>>> references), and there you are.  Why hasn’t anybody done that?  Maybe
>>> that factoid is trying to tell us something, I’m not quite sure what.
>>
>> All this publication tooling is potentially interesting.
>>
>> But if it means that some *other* format is the source from which the
>> xml is derived, then IMO it is important that the data tracker be able
>> to accept an manage it, so that we don't require multiple version
>> tracking.
>>
>>     Thanks,
>>     Paul
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rfc-interest mailing list
>> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>
>



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list