User Tools

Site Tools


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
design:start [2015/10/13 08:36]
rsewikiadmin added reading list; removed discussion topics
design:start [2019/05/07 09:31]
rsewikiadmin General update
Line 15: Line 15:
 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. 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.
  
-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.+The [[design:​design-team|RFC Format Design Team]] ​(July 2013 - December 2016) 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. 
 + 
 +==== Project Implementation ==== 
 +  * [[https://​trac.tools.ietf.org/​tools/​ietfdb/​wiki/​FormatToolsPlan|High-level code release tracking]] 
 +  * [[design:​format-implementation|Format Implementation Steps]]
  
 ==== Reading list ==== ==== Reading list ====
Line 23: Line 27:
  
 1. The big picture 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.+ 
 +[RFC7990] ​Flanagan, H., RFC Format FrameworkRFC 7990, DOI 10.17487/​RFC7990,​ December 2016, [[http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7990]].
  
 2. The underlying vocabulary 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.+ 
 +[RFC7991] ​Hoffman, P., The ‘xml2rfc’ Version ​3 VocabularyRFC 7991, DOI 10.17487/​RFC7991,​ December 2016, [[http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7991]].
  
 3. The outputs 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+[RFC7992] ​Hildebrand, J. and P. Hoffman, ​“HTML ​Format ​for RFCs”RFC 7992, DOI 10.17487/​RFC7992,​ December 2016, [[http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7992]]. 
-  ​* ​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.+[RFC7993] Flanagan, H. “Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) Requirements for RFCs”, RFC 7993, DOI 10.17487/RFC7993, December 2016, [[http://​www.rfc-editor.org/​info/​rfc7993]]. 
 + 
 +[RFC7994] ​Flanagan, H., Requirements for Plain-Text RFCsRFC 7994, DOI 10.17487/​RFC7994,​ December 2016, [[http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7994]]. 
 + 
 +[RFC7995] ​Hansen, T., Masinter, L., and M. Hardy, ​PDF Format ​for RFCs”, ​RFC 7995DOI 10.17487/​RFC7995,​ December 2016, [[http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7995]]. 
 + 
 +[RFC7996] ​Brownlee, N., SVG Drawings for RFCs: SVG 1.2 RFC”, RFC 7996, DOI 10.17487/​RFC7996December 2016, [[http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7996]].
  
 4. Generalized requirements 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!* 
  
-5Workflow and tools (note that the examples draft will not become an RFCbut is necessary for the project) +[RFC7997] Flanagan, H., “The Use of Non-ASCII Characters in RFCs”, RFC 7997DOI 10.17487/RFC7997December 2016, [[http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7997]].
-  * HildebrandJ. 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.+
  
-6The Statements of Work +5Workflow and tools
-  * http://​www.nostrum.com/​~rjsparks/​rfced/​+
  
 +[RFC7998] Hildebrand, J. and P. Hoffman, “‘xml2rfc’ Version 3 Preparation Tool Description”,​ RFC 7998, DOI 10.17487/​RFC7998,​ December 2016, [[http://​www.rfc-editor.org/​info/​rfc7998]].
  
-==== Format Requirements pulled from RFC 6949 ====+Hoffman, P. and T. Hansen, “Examples of the ‘XML2RFC’ Version 2 and 3 Vocabularies”,​ Work in Progress, draft-hoffman-rfcexamples-04,​ May 2015. **Not to be published as an RFC**
  
-      1.  The content of an RFC must not change, regardless of format, + 
-          ​once published.+==== Format Requirements from RFC 6949 ==== 
 + 
 +  The content of an RFC must not change, regardless of format, once published
 +  - The Canonical format must be persistent and reliable across a large variety of devices, operating systems, and editing tools for the indefinite future. ​ This means the format must be both readable and editable across commonly used devices, operating systems, and platforms for the foreseeable future. 
 +  - While several Publication formats must be allowed, in order to continue support for the most basic reading and search tools and to provide continuity for the Series, at least one Publication format must be plain text. 
 +  - The boilerplate and overall structure of the RFC must be in accordance with current RFC and Style Guide requirements (see RFC 5741). 
 +  - The documents must be made accessible to people with visual disabilities through such means as including alternative text for images and limiting the use of color. See the W3C's accessibility documents ​ and the United Nations "​Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities"​ for guidance. ​ Appropriate authoring tools are highly desirable but focus on the creation of Internet-Drafts,​ a topic outside the scope of the RFC Editor. 
 +  - The official language of the RFC Series is English. ​ ASCII is required for all text that must be read to understand or implement the technology described in the RFC.  Use of non- ASCII characters, expressed in a standard Unicode Encoding Form (such as UTF-8), must receive explicit approval from the document stream manager and will be allowed after the rules for the common use cases are defined in the Style Guide. 
 +  - The Submission and Publication formats need to permit extending the set of metadata tags, for the addition of labeled metadata. ​ A predefined set of metadata tags must be created to make use of metadata tags consistent for the life of the Series. 
 +  - Graphics may include ASCII art and a more complex form to be defined, such as SVG line art [SVG]. ​ Color and grayscale will not be accepted. ​ RFCs must correctly display in monochromatic black-and-white to allow for monochrome displays, black-and-white printing, and support for visual disabilities. 
 +  - The Canonical format must be renderable into self-contained Publication formats in order to be easily downloaded and read offline. 
 +  - Fixed-width fonts and non-reflowable text are required for ASCII-art sections, source code examples, and other places where strict alignment is required. 
 +  - At least one Publication format must support readable print to standard paper sizes. 
 +  - The Canonical format should be structured to enable easy program identification and parsing of code or specifications,​ such as MIB modules and ABNF.
           ​           ​
-      2.  The Canonical format must be persistent and reliable across a +
-          large variety of devices, operating systems, and editing tools +
-          for the indefinite future. ​ This means the format must be both +
-          readable and editable across commonly used devices, operating +
-          systems, and platforms for the foreseeable future. +
-           +
-      3.  While several Publication formats must be allowed, in order to +
-          continue support for the most basic reading and search tools +
-          and to provide continuity for the Series, at least one +
-          Publication format must be plain text. +
-           +
-      4.  The boilerplate and overall structure of the RFC must be in +
-          accordance with current RFC and Style Guide requirements (see +
-          [RFC5741]). +
-           +
-      5.  The documents must be made accessible to people with visual +
-          disabilities through such means as including alternative text +
-          for images and limiting the use of color. ​ See the W3C'​s +
-          accessibility documents [WCAG20] and the United Nations +
-          "​Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities"​ +
-          [UN2006] for guidance. ​ Appropriate authoring tools are highly +
-          desirable but focus on the creation of Internet-Drafts,​ a +
-          topic outside the scope of the RFC Editor. +
-           +
-      6.  The official language of the RFC Series is English. ​ ASCII is +
-          required for all text that must be read to understand or +
-          implement the technology described in the RFC.  Use of non- +
-          ASCII characters, expressed in a standard Unicode Encoding +
-          Form (such as UTF-8), must receive explicit approval from the +
-          document stream manager and will be allowed after the rules +
-          for the common use cases are defined in the Style Guide. +
-           +
-      7.  The Submission and Publication formats need to permit +
-          extending the set of metadata tags, for the addition of +
-          labeled metadata. ​ A predefined set of metadata tags must be +
-          created to make use of metadata tags consistent for the life +
-          of the Series. +
-           +
-      8.  Graphics may include ASCII art and a more complex form to be +
-          defined, such as SVG line art [SVG]. ​ Color and grayscale will +
-          not be accepted. ​ RFCs must correctly display in monochromatic +
-          black-and-white to allow for monochrome displays, black-and- +
-          white printing, and support for visual disabilities. +
-           +
-      9.  The Canonical format must be renderable into self-contained +
-          Publication formats in order to be easily downloaded and read +
-          offline. +
-           +
-      10. Fixed-width fonts and non-reflowable text are required for +
-          ASCII-art sections, source code examples, and other places +
-          where strict alignment is required. +
-           +
-      11. At least one Publication format must support readable print to +
-          standard paper sizes. +
-           +
-      12. The Canonical format should be structured to enable easy +
-          program identification and parsing of code or specifications,​ +
-          such as MIB modules and ABNF.+
design/start.txt · Last modified: 2019/05/07 09:31 by rsewikiadmin