--On onsdag, november 23, 2005 09:58:23 -0500 Henning Schulzrinne
<hgs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Let me try a concrete proposal:
- All document editors MUST submit XML format to the RFC editor. (Mostly)
semantic markup makes a lot more sense than presentation mark-up as it
makes it possible to translate the format into a variety of output
formats. This format is the long-term archival format, as it seems highly
unlikely that the world will suddenly forget how to interpret XML in any
timeframe we care about. The schema/DTD is documented in ASCII, so if an
alien invaders take over the (IETF) world, they can bootstrap, as long as
they can figure out English.
this is possible to say. I don't know if it's acceptable.... for instance,
XML2RFC versions invoke boilerplate, they don't contain it; are there legal
dragons here, or is the naming of a publicly-identified DTD/schema enough
of an invocation of legalisms?
- Authors can use Word (or other formats), but must use a Word style that
makes automatic translation to the 2629 XML possible. I don't know enough
about Word internals to know if Word styles are sufficient to make this
possible today, but with a bit of semantic mark-up (e.g., surround the
abstract with tags), this shouldn't be too hard.
has anyone proved by demonstration that this is possible?
It doesn't have to be part of the rules...
- The XML version is made available to the public and is the
authoritative version, in addition to the traditional ASCII version. The
XML version can then be used to generate more readable and printable
versions using XSLT or other tools. I suspect generating a PDF version
wouldn't be hard, either. These presentation formats can then evolve as
people care to write tools.
You can't have two authoritative versions..........
- The XML format also allows the use of UTF-8, for use in examples, not
as normative text. The translation to ASCII can automatically insert U+
or other appropriate elements.
How would the translation know when U+ is appropriate...?
- SVG or a subset thereof is authorized for illustrative (non-normative)
diagrams. The XML schema already supports the ability to link alternative
renditions of graphics, so this requires minimal effort.
I suspect that there are dragons here too.... but I've never tried to do
anything with SVG, so I don't know the tools for it....
I think this would actually put us ahead of standards organizations that
use presentation-oriented document formats that are hard to transform
into alternative renditions now or in the future. None of the above
requires a major change in process, rules or procedures. The only 'tools'
effort would be to create a suitable DOC template. Given that converting
existing late-stage drafts may be onerous, this can be phased in over
time.
Just nibbling at the details.... the big question is whether this will be
felt as help or hindrance to the people who do the real work...
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf