so your concerned about editing ASCI text vs. ASCI XML?
i think you'll be spending that hour regardless.
--bill
On Nov 9, 2005, at 12:02, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
What I do find somewhat tedious is coming to edit an internet draft or
RFC someone else wrote and discovering that I have to spend an hour or
so marking up their text because no editing source exists.
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Frank Ellermann
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 9:15 PM
To: ietf@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: RFCs should be distributed in XML
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
[your premise snipped ;-]
tell why RFC 2629 is not the mandatory official format for
RFC, even
now after six years?
It's an excellent tool to create real drafts and RfCs. For
"real" read text/plain us-ascii in the format defined
elsewhere (2223bis among others).
It's not the only available tool. Bruce is the maintainer of
the nroff tools, and somebody else offers MS word tools.
The tools team apparently adopted RfC 2629 as the primary
format for the automatical handling of submissions, and one
of the "document set" drafts also builds on this format.
Just let it be, eventually it will be as you want it.
Numerous tools like rfcmarkup still build on the "real"
format, and nothing's wrong with that.
With xml2rfc you can now also create unpaginated output, nice
for creating / posting a quick diff.
That feature was added this year, it's still a living
project, last DTD updates also this year.
The EULA boilerplates (= 78/79) are also still a moving
target (unfortunately). This is all not yet ready to be cast
in stone. Only the general direction is IMHO more or less
clear. Bye, Frank
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf