Re: Alternative formats for IDs

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



 when the RFC does use
xml2rfc for
most of the editing process getting back a revised XML spec from the RFC Editor
that has all the changes made prior to the nroff step would be a HUGE
improvement. The time needed to retrofit all the RFC Editor changes into the XML is nonnegligable - I wish I didn't epeak from recent experience, but I do.


Agree completely.

1. Constraining the initial requirement -- for maintaining the master in xml2rfc format -- to apply only to documents that are submitted to the RFC Editor in that format -- that is, the RFC Editor does not create a conversion, they merely retain the format -- strikes me as far too pragmatic to disagree with, and for the reason you cite.

2. Given that the RFC Editor has the current practice of converting .txt submissions to nroff, it is equally reasonable to pursue their changing that conversion, to instead be into xml2rfc. By 'equally reasonable' I mean as a parallel effort, on its own schedule. As with any transition, the folks doing the work need to remain productive; this requires concessions in the details of the transition process.

3. I believe that we should not plan to prohibit nroff submissions, for the foreseeable future. I'd rather deprecate the activity by virtue of community preference than by imposition of a rule.

d/


--

Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
<http://bbiw.net>

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]