[rfc-i] [IAB] [Rsoc] Archival format to rfc-interest and the IAB
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Mon Mar 2 11:56:47 PST 2020
On 02.03.2020 20:28, John R. Levine wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Mar 2020, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> Well, we have a growing number of documents published in a "canonical"
>> XML format that is not canonical and has no documentation.
>> The more we have of these, the more we'll have to fix later on.
> Henrik says, I believe correctly, that the changes have been backward
> compatible so the current grammar is a superset of the original, and all
> of the XML RFCs published to date are valid with the current grammar and
> render with the current version of xml2rfc.
That is probably true.
> Having said that, I also agree that the situation is not great. The
> RSOC has tasked me with documenting the changes (starting with the
> deltas to the grammar which I do have) and coming up with a process to
> control future changes.
Note that the changes are not constrained to the grammar. For instance,
xml2rfc added support for special line break characters, and then later
on for <br>. Is the other thing going to backed out?
> I think there are changes we'll want to back out so later this year
> we'll need to consider what's the best way to retroactively adjust the
> XML coding (not the text) and make it clear what we did.
And to get there, we have to work on rfc7991bis.
Best regards, Julian
More information about the rfc-interest