This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
— |
design:20141014-notes [2014/12/17 07:54] (current) rsewikiadmin created |
||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
+ | Attending: | ||
+ | Heather, Sandy, Nevil, Tony, Robert, Julian, Joe, Paul | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | 0. Agenda bash | ||
+ | |||
+ | 1. Report out from meeting with IAB & IETF chairs (Heather) | ||
+ | |||
+ | A variety of topics covered, from how the transition will work, how the tools development process should iterate, what should be published when XML is not provided by authors. | ||
+ | |||
+ | 2. Draft status | ||
+ | - xml2rfc v2 (Heather/ | ||
+ | |||
+ | Julian has two to-dos: remove a section (App D), and look at that offending sentence in i18n section, then submit. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Joe: we do still need better language around < | ||
+ | |||
+ | - xml2rfc v3 (Paul) | ||
+ | Paul: no updates since last call. Joe is looking at it carefully from the HTML standpoint. | ||
+ | |||
+ | - Examples (Paul) | ||
+ | Paul: no additional feedback yet. One person said they hoped that the example we had could be used as a template for people to write an RFC from v3, which should be fine. That’s not a final goal, but it is likely to just work that way. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Joe: a little grumpy that it doesn’t have one of everything, but understand why it isn’t, so started a more detailed document that includes examples of everything. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Paul: since this will be published as an RFC in the old format, we might point to examples elsewhere. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Julian: why can’t this be published in the new format? | ||
+ | |||
+ | Paul: we could not have the examples with limited column lengths in a draft, but instead put them on a website with long-lived URLs. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Joe: could do what the codex team did, and encode in a way that’s easy to recover and put it in the draft encoded. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Robert: It depends if we need that level of exactness, but we don’t. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Sandy: why not publish a -bis document when new format is available? | ||
+ | |||
+ | Tony: what examples should be covered in this document? | ||
+ | |||
+ | Joe’s draft will have one instance of every element in v3. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Robert: the primary distinction as to whether the examples draft includes it, is whether a reasonably informed document editor needs a hint. You have two different audiences. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Paul: we might go to rfc-i with that specific question, give we have flushed out the initial responses. | ||
+ | |||
+ | - HTML (Joe) | ||
+ | Joe: putting together a source v3 doc that has one of everything, writing a translation of that into HTML, then documenting what that translation is into HTML. The HTML draft will be parallel to the v3 draft, plus extras around how to render the overall stuff. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Julian: if you are doing what you’re doing, then we will have a validator from v3 to HTML. Joe: yes, but would prefer to think of it as a prototype that the tools team may or may not want to use. It’s is a moderately esoteric tool change using node, not using XSLT. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Julian: one thing that makes me unhappy about detailing every bit of HTML; if we had smart developers using HTML, they might do this better than you. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Joe: should have an update by draft deadline (Oct 28) | ||
+ | |||
+ | - PDF (Tony) | ||
+ | Tony: having difficulty getting the co-authors to engage; trying to set up a meeting this week to force some answers on some of the open issues, and hopefully will have something more definitive later this week. Will remind them of the draft deadline no later than Oct 28 | ||
+ | |||
+ | Julian: question regarding PDF; the reason we suddenly like PDF is because it embeds XML? Heather: no, that’s not the only reason | ||
+ | |||
+ | - framework (Heather) | ||
+ | Sandy: in section 10.2, where it talks about docs that will be submitted in text as only published as text - is that still correct? | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | 3. IETF 91 | ||
+ | - Reminder: one more call before IETF 91, on Oct 28. Given the timeline posted at the last IETF meeting, we need to have the drafts stable enough for the SoWs to go out by then. Possible? | ||
+ | |||
+ | - Format session? | ||
+ | I’m leaning towards “no” since at this point we don’t really have questions for the community, and updates regarding progress and next steps can be posted to the rfc-i list and referred to during plenary. | ||
+ | |||
+ | - Design Team meeting? | ||
+ | Yes. | ||
+ | Tony won’t be there | ||
+ | |||
+ | 4. AOB | ||
+ | Joe: sent something to the list re: considering changing the date format in v3 | ||
+ | |||
+ | Julian: it is used in two different ways; sometimes for exact dates and to weight things in references; if you can account for both use cases, that’s fine. We could use ISO format and prose; that would be acceptable | ||
+ | |||
+ | Joe: quick demo of tooling | ||
+ | |||
+ | Tony: put a note on rfc-i re: the version tool, and one of the first comment was “can I convert the output of this into text? | ||