[rfc-i] Making the XML available
Joel M. Halpern
jmh at joelhalpern.com
Tue Mar 5 12:39:52 PST 2019
We are in the process of shifting to make the XML
1) The normative form
2) used to generate all other forms
3) Available directly
As such, why would we mess with trying to adjust / improve the current
process when we hope to get away from it ASAP.
On 3/5/19 3:36 PM, Kent Watsen wrote:
> The request is if the IETF could also make the final (post Auth48) XML
> for RFCs available?
> The motivation is twofold:
> 1. To better support extracting content from RFCs.
> * current approach is to extract content (i.e. source code
> inclusions, such as YANG modules) from the plain-text, but this
> is not ideal and, not for lack of trying, does not result in
> perfect extractions (indents, outdents, extra lines, etc.).
> 2. To better support kick-starting a "biz" draft.
> * current approach is for authors to use the last posted revision
> of the draft, that which the IESG approved, but this version
> does not include any changes made by the copy editors.
> It is understood that, today, the XML is used to generate the `nroff`
> format, and that final adjustments are made there. It is assumed that
> the adjustments being made there are minor (e.g., pagination, flow,
> etc.) as, from experience, XML is used throughout the Auth48 process.
> The request is to make this last XML version available.
> Since this XML is not the final version, there may be hesitation to
> publish it as another official "output" format. To address this
> inconsistency, could language surrounding the link (e.g., a click-thru
> popup) be used to disclose it?
> Alternatively, maybe no link is required, so long as it's well-known how
> to construct the URL to access it. For example:
> Given that:
> * Text ----> https://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfcXXXX.txt
> * PDFs ----> https://tools.ietf.org/pdf/rfcXXXX.pdf
> * HTML ----> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfcXXXX
> So, maybe:
> * XML -----> https://tools.ietf.org/xml/rfcXXXX.xml
> * or -----> https://tools.ietf.org/xml/rfcXXXX.xml
> If only a well-known URL were made available, extraction-tools and
> bis-authors (per 1 and 2 above) would have what they need, without
> exposing the XML to the general public.
> PS: I'm unsure if this is the best place to ask this question, so please
> bounce this message to another list if needed.
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest