[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
Michael,
You make some good points, thanks.
But also, I'm happy with Carsten's new idnits option, so this has been a
useful discussion.
Cheers,
Andy
On Sat, Feb 6, 2021 at 4:44 PM Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf at sandelman.ca>
wrote:
>
> 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