> Hi - > > From: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@xxxxxx> > > To: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: "IETF Discussion Mailing List" <ietf@xxxxxxxx> > > Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 10:13 AM > > Subject: Re: Automatically updated Table of Contents with Nroff > ... > > Point is: nroff and xml2rfc share the advantage that they are simple > > text based formats, which can be put under version control, and > > collaborative editing/change control just works. Missing features can > > simply implemented using automated pre- or post-processing stages. > ... > With respect to boilerplate, xml2rfc lacks this advantage. > *It* generates the boilerplate; the user has no way of knowing whether > the option present in the source file will result in the same output > text today as it did yesterday. I've been using xml2fc extensively since it came out, and I've *never* seen a case where the boilerplate changed for a given combination of ipr setting and date. Moreover, I would regard any such change as a bug, not a feature. > From a configuration management / > revision control perspective, this is highly undesirable. it would be if it happened. AFAIK it does not. > It would be > much better to be able to "#include" a versioned source file for > those bits. I strongly disagree. An *overwhelming* advantage of xml2rfc is that it takes care of boilerplate and I rarely if ever have to think about it, much less having to arrange for a set of include files to be available. Blech on that. Ned _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf