On Tue April 5 2005 15:30, Alex Rousskov wrote: > On Wed, 2005/03/02 (MST), <blilly@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I've suggested (via Reply-To) discussion on the IETF list. > > Bruce, > > Thanks a lot for reviewing and commenting on the draft! > > I am preparing a revision to address Last Call comments. > > I am not on the IETF list anymore (too much noise), so I am CCing Tools > discussion list instead. Please feel free to forward elsewhere. I'm copying the IETF list for closure. > > It seems odd that there is no provision for upload of nroff source > > (RFC 2223) mentioned in sections 7 and 8 of the draft. > > The motivation for uploading XML sources is that they are used by tools > and humans processing submitted drafts. Likewise for nroff source. > For example, RFC Editor is often > using authors' XML sources. While I have no data to either confirm or refute that assertion, RFC 2223 section 3 and the draft successor to that document both explicitly state that the RFC Editor uses nroff. > We expect such uses to grow once XML sources > are easily available. In fact, the submission tool itself is expected to > extract useful metadata from XML sources. I suspect that similar metadata could be extracted from nroff source, at least if a suitable macro package (e.g. as described in draft-lilly-using-troff) is used. > What would be the motivation for uploading nroff sources? In addition to extraction of metadata, o nroff is used by the RFC-Editor (RFC 2223 section 3); keeping the same source format from initial draft through RFC production can ease the workload for authors and the RFC Editor o automatic generation of plain text, PostScript, PDF, HTML (including line diagrams, tables, data formats, etc.), preserving page layout, from single source o (if a suitable macro package is used) no need to upload boilerplate; provided that the (IETF copy of the) macro package is maintained, up-to-date boilerplate can be generated automatically o ability for authors w/o access to formatting tools to upload easily- produced document source which can be used to produce a formatted draft > I understand > that some folks prefer to create drafts using nroff, MS Word, or other > formats, but what would be the primary benefit of uploading those sources > to IETF repositories? For nroff, see above. As I haven't suggested other formats, I have no comments at this time regarding putative benefits attributable to them. > And if nroff sources are accepted, should we accept > MS Word and other source formats? For me, source formats other than nroff are uninteresting (i.e. "I don't care"). _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf