[rfc-i] [Tools-discuss] Recommendation 9 from Results and analysis of the survey of I-D authors on formats and tools

Andrew G. Malis agmalis at gmail.com
Sat Feb 6 14:51:48 PST 2021


You make some good points, thanks.

But also, I'm happy with Carsten's new idnits option, so this has been a
useful discussion.


On Sat, Feb 6, 2021 at 4:44 PM Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf at sandelman.ca>

> I am agnostic about commonmark vs kramdown.
> I want to address the question of accepting markdown on the DT.
> There are three aspects which mis-recommends this to me:
> 1) DT would have to be able to communicate errors back to the submitter
> well.
>    Running the formatting, including the xml2rfc pass locally means that
>    errors are communicating locally.
>    So, my opinion is that accepting kramdown does not reduce any local
> complexity.
> 2) {::include }
>    One of the things I like about kramdown, is the {:include} directive.
>    This lets us keep the ascii art and other example diagrams in other
> files.
>    This significantly reduces errors in updating example content.
>    If we supported upload in kramdown, then we'd have to support upload
>    of entire sets of files to be useful.
> 3) {::include } is insufficient.
>    We have a bunch of other content: code examples, yang modules,  etc.
>    which have so far been rather annoying to get in, and I wrote a perl
>    script to insert the right <CODE BEGINS>, <figure><artwork>, and
>    also to pick the right YANG version YYYYMMDD stuff.
>    I think that getting all this right in whatever markdown format would
>    take several iteration of tool improvements, and we have only just
>    gotten to XMLv3.
>    XMLv3 gets this all 'right' now, but I think that we aren't even close
>    to 100% submission as XML.
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF at sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
>            Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210206/8ab6a124/attachment.html>

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list