On Nov 29, 2005, at 1:53 PM, Gray, Eric wrote:
One issue with to quickly responding to Bob's earlier questions is that the XML version - as Christian has already said - cannot be the authoritative/normative version of an RFC. I would qualify that someone by allowing that an XML version cannot be authoritative/normative unless it is completely self contained. And, by self contained, I mean there MUST be an absolute, positively concrete guarantee that every time we process it, it will always produce exactly the same text.
The value in retaining input files used to generate the authoritative/ normative version of an RFC is to facilitate subsequent updates. While the bibliography section could be seen as dynamic for an ID, RFC references will provide static results. Boilerplates provided within conversion tools help expedite conformance to current requirements. What problem is created considering the XML version of the draft as non-authoritative? Nevertheless, some effort should be made to manage the bibliography reference library related to the IETF, to ensure consistent conversions.
An additional benefit could be seen as permitting a larger diversity of output formats. While indeed the current ASCII text RFCs may be suitable vehicles for conveying information, they lack convenience such as hyper-links to reference information. The current XML2RFC tools provides for both the text and HTML output forms of this document. It would not be difficult to include a PDF output that also provides hyper-link capabilities.
Full graphic capabilities may not be a desired goal, as a million words may still be required to clarify the intent of a complex picture. In nearly all RFCs, the artwork offering tables describing the format of binary structures offers the greatest benefit. ASCII artwork may not draw perfect lines, but this is really a matter of character-sets. Should the IETF consider definitions to cover optional characters for drawing table borders and lines? Does this get extended into also allowing international characters for author's names?
Clearly an XML input file allows for a greater diversity of outputs. Perhaps, with some effort, more than just the text form of the RFC can be considered authoritative. The XML input would not need to be considered authoritative to achieve such a goal. Allowing access to these XML documents will reduce the burden on authors attempting to make corrections and highlighting what changes are being made, beyond the boilerplates and format changes, etc.
-Doug _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf