(sorry folks... didn't mean to bother others with this but obviously slipped up) john --On Friday, June 15, 2018 15:11 -0400 John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Alexandre, > > In the light of the note Henrik posted after I started to write > this, the note that follows may be irrelevant, but possibly > worth reading anyway. > > In your tour of the problems that you have discussed on-list, > you have identified a problem or three with xml2rdc that > deserves a trouble report. I hope for better, but even if the > only effect of that report is to make sure that bugs of xml2rfc > v2 do not get carried forward into the production version of > xml2rfc v3, that would be a positive step. > > I trust you are not surprised that these things, especially the > file name and "suffix"/"file type" stuff have been noticed by, > and irritated lots of others. We have just (eventually) > learned what the problem is and then decided that remembering > to not cause it is less trouble than asking for fixes (and > maybe being necessary anyway). > > One problem is that such a complaint must be written carefully > to avoid causing other problems. For example, if we were to > complain that, in the <rfc> element, > draft-<stuff>-nn > is accepted but > draft-<stuff>-nn.txt > is not and produces incomprehensible messages, we might get a > fix that would clearly reject not only the second case but > names that do no9 contain exactly two digits before the end of > the string. That would be a disaster for those of us who use > assorted naming tricks to keep track of intermediate versions > that are not intended for posting and that are intended to be > seen only by the author(s) and a small circle of friends until > there have been enough iteration in that group to make them fit > for posting. > > You have also uncovered a great deal of confusion about things > that may be worth getting documented (or at least flagged). > For example, when you complained about not being able to submit > an XML file for posting without a text one, I replied that the > text one was required. It was at one point, but I was wrong; > it seems that the tool will now accept XML and compile it. I > make sufficiently many XML mistakes that I haven't had the > nerve to try that or find out about it. > > Other comments in response to your notes have implied that the > submission tool requires that the names of the file names that > are uploaded must match the names that will be used in the > Internet-Drafts directory. That isn't true. For example, if I > have properly structured files for > draft-ietf-example-example-00.txt and > draft-ietf-example-example-00.xml > but keep them in my file system as, e.g., > examp-example-00.txt abd > examp-example-00.xml > the system will upload those files without problems an just > proceed normally. This is a big advantage for those who use > personal file naming conventions (perhaps, as above, for > sub-version tracking and perhaps just because they are lazy > about typing) and so on. > > Anyway, I cannot do more with this until mid-next-week, but, it > you would find it helpful to work with me on a coherent list of > specific issues (in either code or documentation) rather than > just making iterative complaints of the IETF list, please get > back to me. > > best, > john > >
