On 14.03.2010 19:45, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
You can submit the HTML, the problem is that it seems to go in the bit
bucket.
Since the preferred submission formats are XML or nroff, I see no reason
that the HTML version could not be generated from the XML.
The problem seems to be that the RFC editor insists on using the XML to
generate nroff and then makes all edits to the nroff, this is then used
to generate the teletype version and a PDF of the teletype version.
Again: that's not true anymore; in many cases, most of AUTH48 happens to
the XML version, and NROFF is only generated in the final step. Of
course it would be great if we could avoid that final step, as it's
(IMHO) a waste of time, and also adds the risk ob subtle bugs (like
whitespace in artwork/XML/ABNF
The net effect appears to be that there is no HTML version available,
even if the authors exclusively used HTML for the production process.
Hence, what I consider to be entirely justified anger on this point.
I think we should encourage the future RFC-Editor to publish the (X)HTML
version as well, when available (*).
BR, Julian
(*) I do have a different preference about the tool to translate from
RFC2629-XML to (X)HTML, but that's a separate topic.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf