[rfc-i] What the text version is used for (was Re: The <tt> train wreck)

Bob Hinden bob.hinden at gmail.com
Tue Aug 24 19:21:25 PDT 2021


> On Aug 21, 2021, at 3:27 PM, John Levine <johnl at taugh.com> wrote:
> ….
> This tells me that we need to keep the text version and it needs to have the full
> contents of the document, but not that it has to be particularly beautiful.  The HTML
> is where you get the beautiful version.

I agree with this.    I use text file version of drafts quite a lot currently.  This includes:

- rfcdiff to compare two different versions, this includes:
   o After running xml2rfc to see the changes
   o Looking at a new text output in emacs (where I edit the xml)
   o Looking at the changes when a new draft is published
   o Emailing a link to a diff of two text versions
- Excerpts from text drafts paste into email as part of list discussions
- I even occasionally print a text version from emacs (ps-print) if
  I want to read and markup a paper version.

If there were equivalent tools that worked with one of the other formats (html or pdf), I might be able to migrate to using that.   As far as I can tell that doesn’t exist today.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20210824/96d6153b/attachment.asc>

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list