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

Robert Sparks rjsparks at nostrum.com
Wed Aug 25 11:59:44 PDT 2021


I remember EKR mentioning that he used the plain text version when doing 
reviews, as it loaded well into the code-review tool he was co-opting.

Are other people using the text this way?

RjS

On 8/25/21 11:10 AM, Bob Hinden wrote:
> Martin,
>
>> On Aug 24, 2021, at 7:34 PM, Martin Thomson <mt at lowentropy.net> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 25, 2021, at 12:21, Bob Hinden wrote:
>>> 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.
>> I will observe that with the exception of diffs, I use HTML for all of the things he lists.  I find that most of these use cases work better from HTML than text.  For instance, I find the added spacing and line breaks in the text format occasionally awkward for pasting quotations into other mediums.
>>
>> Diffs of HTML really don't work well, so I find that plain, unpaginated text is best for that.  Using unpaginated text means that I can use ordinary diff tools rather than rfcdiff, which gives me a lot more choice.  That said, I do find the online service that diffs arbitrary URLs to be quite convenient and I do use diffs a lot.
> I agree.   Diffs appear to be the main reason to keep using text at this point in time.
>
> Bob
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20210825/8562defe/attachment.html>


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list