RSE Wiki Archive

User Tools

Site Tools

Trace:
design:start

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision 		Previous revision
Last revision Both sides next revision
design:start [2013/10/15 14:19]
rsewikiadmin 		design:start [2015/10/13 08:36]
rsewikiadmin added reading list; removed discussion topics
Line 5: Line 5:
 During IETF 86, the IAB formally approved the publication of "RFC Format Requirements and Future Development" (RFC 6949).  That RFC outlines the requirements gathered from the communities of interest regarding the Canonical format for the RFC Series.  With those requirements in hand, the next step is to explore how those requirements might be implemented and verify what is possible and reasonable for the Series going forward. During IETF 86, the IAB formally approved the publication of "RFC Format Requirements and Future Development" (RFC 6949).  That RFC outlines the requirements gathered from the communities of interest regarding the Canonical format for the RFC Series.  With those requirements in hand, the next step is to explore how those requirements might be implemented and verify what is possible and reasonable for the Series going forward.
  
-The direction we will be exploring is one where the Canonical format - the format that is authoritative for content of an RFC - is XML using the xml2rfc DTD.  From that format, the RFC Editor will experiment with +The direction we are exploring is one where the Canonical format - the format that is authoritative for content of an RFC - is XML using the xml2rfc DTD.  From that format, four Publication formats will be rendered: Text, HTML, PDF, and EPUB.  We are focusing on the xml2rfc DTD as something most likely to meet the requirements as defined in a reasonable time frame and budget because xml2rfc is:
-rendering four Publication formats:  plain text, HTML, PDF, and EPUB.  The goal is to run through this experiment over the next year and determine if this is in fact the correct direction for the Series or if +
-some other option should be explored as potentially more viable.  We are focusing on the xml2rfc DTD and associated rendering tool as something most likely to meet the requirements as defined in a reasonable time frame and budget because xml2rfc is:+
  
   * well-known by many in the authoring community as well as the RFC Editor;   * well-known by many in the authoring community as well as the RFC Editor;
Line 13: Line 11:
   * is based on a solid mark-up language that is expected to exist for the foreseeable future.   * is based on a solid mark-up language that is expected to exist for the foreseeable future.
  
-Over the past few months, the [[design:design-team|RFC Format Design Team]], formed in Berlin, has discussed the more detailed requirements for the XML Canonical format as well as the requirements of the different Publication formats.  The results of that discussion, including documentation on items discussed but decided against as requirements, are documented in the pages below.+Authors may continue to submit XML or text files when their I-Ds are approved for publication.  
  
-==== Requirements ==== +By allowing for multiple Publication formats, readers can choose a format that works best for their circumstances.  The Text and PDF will be extremely basic and support the widest array of tools.  The HTML will allow more features and be readable by modern browsers.
-  * [[design:image-requirements|Requirements for Images]] +
-  * [[design:text-requirements|Requirements for Text Output]] +
-  * [[design:html-requirements|Requirements for HTML Output]] +
-  * [[design:pdf-requirements|Requirements for PDF Output]]+
  
-==== Recommendations and discussions ==== +Over the past two years, the [[design:design-team|RFC Format Design Team]], formed during IETF 87, has discussed the more detailed requirements for the XML Canonical format as well as the requirements of the different Publication formats and their associated character encoding.  The results of that discussion, including documentation on items discussed but decided against as requirements, are documented in this wiki. 
-  * [[design:formats|Thoughts on Non-Canonical Formats]] + 
-  * [[design:tool|Ideas for the RFC tool]] +==== Reading list ==== 
-  * [[design:svg|Thoughts on SVG]] +The RFC Format is a large project that has required several documents to capture the requirements found in each aspect of the work. The documents depend on each other, and are moving through the community review and publication process as a set to help keep those relationships intact. Several documents require understanding a separate document for full comprehension of the material. 
-  * [[design:utf-8|Thoughts on UTF-8]]+ 
 +Below is the suggested reading order for the drafts that describe the new RFC format requirements. The design team has done a great job in pulling all fo this together, and many members of the community have reviewed these in parts and offered targeted feedback. Please take this time to review the drafts as a compendium, and then review the Statements of Work that describe the programming effort that will depend on these drafts as their requirements. 
 + 
 +1. The big picture 
 +  * Flanagan, H., "RFC Format Framework", Work in Progress, [[http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-flanagan-rfc-framework/|draft-flanagan-rfc-framework-04]], June 2015. 
 + 
 +2. The underlying vocabulary 
 +  * Hoffman, P., "The 'XML2RFC' version 3 Vocabulary", Work in Progress, [[https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hoffman-xml2rfc/|draft-hoffman-xml2rfc-23]], September 2015. 
 + 
 +3. The outputs 
 +  * Hildebrand, J. and P. Hoffman, "HyperText Markup Language Request For Comments Format", Work in Progress, [[https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hildebrand-html-rfc/|draft-hildebrand-html-rfc-10]], August 2015. 
 +  * Flanagan, H., "Requirements for Plain Text RFCs", Work in Progress, [[https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-flanagan-plaintext/|draft-flanagan-plaintext-08]], September 2015. 
 +  * Hansen, T., Masinter, L., and M. Hardy, "PDF for an RFC Series Output Document Format", Work in Progress, [[https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hansen-rfc-use-of-pdf/|draft-hansen-rfc-use-of-pdf-08]], October 2015. 
 +  * Brownlee, N., "SVG Drawings for RFCs: SVG 1.2 RFC", Work in Progress, [[https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-brownlee-svg-rfc/|draft-brownlee-svg-rfc-12]], September 2015. 
 + 
 +4. Generalized requirements 
 +  * Flanagan, H., "The Use of Non-ASCII Characters in RFCs", Work in Progress, [[https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-flanagan-nonascii-05.pdf|draft-flanagan-nonascii-05]], August 2015. *Please review the PDF version only!* 
 + 
 +5. Workflow and tools (note that the examples draft will not become an RFC, but is necessary for the project) 
 +  * Hildebrand, J. and P. Hoffman, "RFC v3 Prep Tool Description", Work in Progress, [[https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hoffman-rfcv3-preptool/|draft-hoffman-rfcv3-preptool-06]], September 2015. 
 +  * Hoffman, P. and T. Hansen, "Examples of the 'XML2RFC' Version 2 and 3 Vocabularies", Work in Progress, [[http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hoffman-rfcexamples/|draft-hoffman-rfcexamples-03]], May 2015. 
 + 
 +6. The Statements of Work 
 +  * http://www.nostrum.com/~rjsparks/rfced/
  
-==== Other information ==== 
-  * [[design:producing-output|How RFC Output Is Produced]] 
-  * [[design:text-sample|Sample of Text Output]] 
-  * [[design:html-notes|Notes on Existing HTML Formats]] 
-  * [[design:front-back-matter|Proposed Content for Front and Back Matter]] 
-  * [[design:format-errata|Non-Canonical Formats and the Errata system]] 
-  * [[design:design-team|The RFC Format Design Team]] 
  
 ==== Format Requirements pulled from RFC 6949 ==== ==== Format Requirements pulled from RFC 6949 ====
design/start.txt · Last modified: 2019/05/07 09:31 by rsewikiadmin

Page Tools

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki