Julian Reschke wrote: > Joe Touch schrieb: >> Julian Reschke wrote: >>> Joe Touch schrieb: >>>> Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: >>>>> On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 09:01:22AM -0700, >>>>> Joe Touch <touch@xxxxxxx> wrote a message of 34 lines which said: >>>>> >>>>>>> IMHO, IETF should always publish the "source" of its documents >>>>>>> (the current RFC process is far from perfect in that respect). >>>>>> Which source >>>>> The source. The author certainly knows it (yes, I'm aware that the RFC >>>>> editor performs changes which are not backported in the author's copy, >>>>> a really annoying thing; that's why I said the current process is >>>>> bad). >>>> That's part of the problem. The other is that 'source' is useful only >>>> with a snapshot of the tools that are used to process it. XML2RFC is a >>>> moving target in that regard, as is Word. >>> Re XML2RFC: why do you need a snapshot if future development produces >>> versions that continue to implement the semantics defined in RFC2629? >> >> It doesn't use 2329; it extends it based on its unofficial successor >> (see the web pages). > > Yes, but: > > 1) If there'd be a decision to officially use rfc2629bis for document > production, we certainly would revise rfc2629 first, so the extensions > then would be sufficiently described in an RFC, and > > 2) how's that relevant for the initial question? As long as future > versions of xml2rfc are compatible with the one you used, why would you > *need* to keep a snapshot of an old version? As long as future versions are backward compatible with all past versions, that's fine. That has not been my impression of xml2rfc over the small window I tried to use it. Joe
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf