[rfc-i] draft-iab-rfc-plaintext-02

Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) rse at rfc-editor.org
Sun Feb 28 10:34:14 PST 2016

On 2/28/16 9:35 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-iab-rfc-plaintext-02.html#rfc.section.1.p.3>:
> "A plain-text output for RFCs will continue to be required for the
> foreseeable future. The process of converting XML2RFC version 2 (xml2rfc
> v2) into text documents is well understood [I-D.iab-xml2rfcv2]. ..."
> Should cite RFC 7749.
> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-iab-rfc-plaintext-02.html#rfc.section.1.p.6>:

Yes; this applies to all the format drafts. If necessary, it will be
fixed during the RPC editing process.

> "Where practical, the original guidance for the structure of a
> plain-text RFC has been kept, such as with line lengths, lines per page,
> etc. [INS2AUTH] Other publication formats, such as HTML and PDF, will
> include additional features that will not be present in the plain text
> (e.g., paragraph numbering, typographical emphasis."
> ")" missing.
> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-iab-rfc-plaintext-02.html#rfc.section.3.p.1>:


> "Artwork is defined as anything marked by the XML >artwork< element (see
> Section 2.5 of "The 'XML2RFC' version 3 Vocabulary" [I-D.iab-xml2rfc].
> Only the 'type=ascii-art' will be rendered within the plain-text format.
> This marks figures drawn with ASCII characters."
> That doesn't work. There are many other things that could be placed into
> <artwork>, and those will have to continue to work in the plain text
> version.
> The type list in the v3 spec is not exhaustive, but even on that list I
> see "call-flow" and "hex-dump" which will have to continue to work.
> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-iab-rfc-plaintext-02.html#rfc.section.5.p.1>:

Hmm. Do you have any suggested language so I can better capture the
intended meaning here?

> "... In particular, the formatter will use the "submissionType",
> "seriesInfo", "author", "address", "title", "reference",
> "referencegroup", and "references" to build the front and back matter of
> the document."
> This list is confusing. Why is front and back matter called out here?

Because that's where there seemed to be confusion when this was
discussed earlier this year on the design team and with the IAB about
what xml tags would actually impact the plaintext output. Rather than
rewrite the draft that had a great deal of "this tag does not apply" I
worked with Robert to figure out what would be sensible to include.

Do you have a proposal for different text?


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list