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

Carsten Bormann cabo at tzi.org
Sat Feb 6 19:10:53 PST 2021

On 7. Feb 2021, at 03:07, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf at sandelman.ca> wrote:
> That actually is less helpful, if you haven't uploaded all the required files
> to the DT.

Right.  So an include feature probably should include a preparation feature that allows you to create a combined version to upload.

But why not include the conversion to XML with that preparation round?

Actually, when you use kramdown-rfc to create XML, the original source (combined!) is included in the XML as a comment (extract with kramdown-rfc-extract-markdown), so we already have the best of both worlds.

Re the {::include fn} feature:  I used to create documents like RFC 7400 (which is mostly generated text) from a script.
But then I found it easier to edit the text around the generated snippets with the {::include fn} feature.
Of course, there still needs to be a Makefile and the generation scripts for the snippets themselves.
(Including those in the markdown isn’t advisable for security reasons.)

While there is a bit of redundancy in ...

<CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-sid-file at 2020-02-05.yang"
{::include ietf-sid-file at 2020-02-05.yang}

…, I’m not sure avoiding that warrants a Perl script by itself.

Grüße, Carsten

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20210207/a2d22cde/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list