Agree with Barry that we need to balance things wisely.
If we are routinely taking up RFC-Editor resources for cosmetic reformatting
of XML2RFC output, I'm thinking that this is not a good use of resources.
If someone submitted one XML2RFC input that triggered some XML2RFC boundary
condition bug and caused a blank page to be emitted in the middle of a
document, maybe it's "better" to quickly fix the output than to fix XML2RFC,
but I'd really like to get to the point where there is no reformatting of
XML2RFC output for most/all XML2RFC input files that were submitted for
publication as RFCs.
Thanks,
Spencer
From: "Barry Leiba" <leiba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Bob Braden wrote:
Suppose that we edit the document in XML (we are already
doing this part of the time), do a final nroffing pass to get the
format just right, and then give the author(s) the edited xml,
...
We have to make a new nroff version and
PUT THE SAME CHANGES INTO IT THAT WE DID THE FIRST TIME.
Now, this may not actually be too bad; most of the changes at the nroff
stage are very cosmetic
Maybe we're attacking that part of it the wrong way.
What is it that makes those "cosmetic" changes, to "get the format
just right", so important? Do we really care whether there's an
extra blank line, or the indentation is one character too much?
When I run xml2rfc and look at the results, the formatting looks
"just right" to me, at least for any value of "just right" that
I care about. Why does the IETF (or others) care for a greater
value of "just right"?
Or am I missing something basic in the formatting changes you're
looking at, at that stage?
Barry
--
Barry Leiba, Pervasive Computing Technology (leiba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
http://www.research.ibm.com/people/l/leiba
http://www.research.ibm.com/spam
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf