Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal draft formatting standards required

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

 



Doug Otis wrote:
...
On Jul 13, 2009, at 1:10 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
The "experimental" version (http://xml.resource.org/experimental.html) is as stable as predecessor versions; the main reason it hasn't been released is that the authors (IMHO) expected more boilerplate changes to occur.

And what exactly do you mean by "cryptic entries"?

There was little documentation for what would satisfy the nit checker a few months ago. It was a challenge to know what was needed for the rfc structure. The needed ipr parameter appeared rather cryptic.
...

Well, the @ipr value needs to capture several dimensions, such as type of IPR *and* time scale (because the IETF rules keep changing). Of course the values could be made less cryptic, but this seems to be something of a bike shed discussion, as long as the values a well documented.

I think the right approach is to either help maintaining the TCL code, or to rewrite xml2rfc in a different language.


To support the generation of MHTML, as some have suggested, the logical intermediary format seems to be XSLT (for defining xml2rfc constructs).

We have that already (xml2rfc->XSLT->(X)HTML), in case you didn't notice.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2557
http://people.dsv.su.se/~jpalme/ietf/mhtml.html

IMHO, pre-processors with roff might offer simpler and cleaner inputs, especially for the vision impaired. A post process could then generate simpler MHTML formats.

Best regards, Julian

_______________________________________________

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

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