*> *> > What would be useful - in even more than this context - *> > would be if there was a peer-level directory where source for *> > all RFCs would be kept adjacent to the RFCs derived from them. The RFC Editor provides nroff source for any RFC upon request, and has always done so. *> *> Quite true. But as long as the RFC Editor finds it necessary to use a *> multi-stage process to produce RFCs with hand tweaking of the output at *> different stages, I doubt that they will be willing to do this because the *> input document will not in fact reproduce what's in the RFC. This is why tool *> improvement to eliminate the need for hand tweaking is so important. But *> in the meantime, I would hope the RFC Editor would be willing to hand back *> the xml2rfc source to the author. It's a stopgap, but a useful stopgap. We are willing to do so, and have been doing so. You just have to ask. In the current process we have to include a disclaimer that the final AUTH48 corrections and formatting niceties may not be included in the XML source we give back. However, it is still useful as a starting point for later documents. Note that this is potentially a little dangerous, though, because people might start archiving the almost-correct XML and later regenerate an almost-correct copy of the document. *> *> I don't know what needs to be done to make xml2rfc better, but I sure wish the *> RFC Editor would spend whatever time it takes with the folks who work on *> xml2rfc to accomplish this. As we have announced at several plenary reports (does anyone ever pay attention??), the RFC Editor has been trying to work with the xml2rfc fraternity to make xml2rfc into an effective document formatting tool. It has not been quick or easy. I just checked with one of our editors, Alice Hagens, who uses xml2rfc regularly. She tells me that she entered several issues into the xml2rfc tracker, but she does not think "anyone is looking at it any more." There is unfortunately a fundamental disconnect: philosophically, the xml2rfc folks don't WANT it to be an effective markup language, which is essentially what is needed. Bob Braden *> *> > In addition to giving us some concrete evidence of how *> > many RFCs use each source format, it would greatly simplify *> > the process of writing new drafts... *> *> Sure - a central repository makes it easy for anyone to come along and produce *> a document revision. Depending on authors preserving input sources is not *> nearly as flexible. *> *> Ned *> *> _______________________________________________ *> Ietf mailing list *> Ietf@xxxxxxxx *> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf *> _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf