--On Thursday, 04 September, 2003 19:17 -0400 Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca> wrote:
John, your reduced proposal would mean that the XML might not hang around during the editing/publication processs. One key thing is that the XML be available for later use in tracking references.
It also makes it easier to do RFCXXXXbis.
Michael,
Two responses/ observations...
(1) At best, one step at a time. I was trying to stay with the spirit of the original proposal, which was, as I understand it, "if the XML for an I-D is available, then let's post it too".
(2) Today, the RFC publication process is one of
author-supplied nroff -> RFC Editor nroff -> RFC text -> nroff -> RFC or XML -> nroff -> RFC
In each of those cases, the RFC Editor makes changes to the document, and those changes are made on the RFC Editor's nroff version of the document. Now, 2629bis says (more or less) "if the RFC Editor makes changes, make those in the XML and submit them to the archive". Good plan, except that
* there is no way to guarantee that the RFC Editor changes will be reflected correctly in author modifications to the XML. Remember that the RFC Editor's text files are authoritative, not original or the post-editing XML files. * because the RFC Editor's notions of flexibilities in formatting are broader than those permitted in the xml2rfc kit (that is both a good thing and a bad thing), there is no guarantee that the changes make by the RFC Editor even can be accurately reflected in the XML source.
Now, "tracking references" is a much easier problem than "copy of the document source in XML that exactly matches the published form of the RFC". If nothing else, it is presumably much less sensitive to subtle changes made by the RFC Editor. But both are rather different proposals, with their own sets of complications and issues, than the originally-proposed "if XML is available for an I-D, let's post it" or my modified version of "if document source is available for an I-D being processed by a WG, let's make it available if the WG Chair(s) and Editor(s) think that wise".
john