On Mon Jul 6 08:46:24 2009, Julian Reschke wrote:
Also, we should keep in mind that xml2rfc can refer both to a
specific XML vocabulary, and a set of tools.
The vocabulary is relatively straightforward, and has been extended
by both MTR and others. At some point of time, we may want to work
on a revision of it (that is, RFC 2629).
The vocabulary is basically sound. I sympathize with Iljitsch wanting
finer control over the rendering of his name, which would need to be
addressed here.
If a GUI WYSIWYG tool got created, I'd probably use it. If someone
created an import filter for some word processor or another, I might
use it, but I generally don't get on with word processors anymore. (I
had an argument with one a few years ago, we never made up).
With respect to the tools: I usually do not worry about xml2rfc.tcl
(the processor) until I need to submit something. Instead, I make
sure that my source validates (against the DTD), and instead focus
on content, and just review the HTML output, as produced by
rfc2629.xslt. The latter works on any machine that has support for
XSLT, such as any that can run IE6, Firefox 2, Opera 9, or Safari
3. And no, you don't need a browser to run the XSLT, just install
xsltproc or Saxon.
I do much the same, although because the document is in XML, I use a
slightly extended format to include annotations to support finer
reference handling and checking, which I scribbled some time back in
XSLT. It gives me an extra stage to my processing, and annoys
co-authors, but produces documents I know have the right references
in the right sections.
XML purists will probably wail and gnash teeth, since I replaced the
inclusion handling very early on with something probably even worse
than the include PI, but that's the joy of XML.
Finally, regarding local installations of xml2rfc.tcl: at least on
Windows, just install Cygwin, make sure TCL is included in the
install, and it will work just fine.
There are also online versions, which eliminate the need to install
it at all if you've got bandwidth.
I'm quite sure that both the file format and toolset could improve,
but I thinks it's a very reasonable way of processing drafts as it
is, and I've be very happy if it were eventually the only way.
FWIW, I suspect that the way I'm doing things - with an initial
format and using the RFC 2629 format as an intermediate one - is
probably the rough shape of things to come.
Dave.
--
Dave Cridland - mailto:dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx - xmpp:dwd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
- http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf