On 12.05.2019 18:16, Carsten Bormann wrote:
...
First of, +1 to almost everything you said...
.. >> For RFC5661 and documents derived from it using Adam’s procedure,
that ship has already sailed :-(.
As the references section needs to be updated anyway (for the DOIs), I’m not sure this is really true. Or, if it is, RFC 5661 maybe isn’t really a candidate for this process, because it may be impractical to re-generate the exact numbering that RFC 5661 used.
Since RFC 5661, we also got DOIs on RFCs, so it is inevitable there are a lot of diffs.
It is not inevitable as shown by the fact that I didn't run into that issue. It's kind of nice to know that there was an issue out there that I didn't run into :-)
For reasons I really don't understand, the xml for rfc5661 does not include rfc reference from external libraries. It includes them inline, so a new rfc derived from that xml file will not include DOIs.
Yes. All these RFC references would be updated by the RFC editor into current references.
Actually, I think a processor should optionally insert the DOIs
automatically. The current way of doing things just introduced a
completely unneeded incompatibility.
Of course, I would not recommend directly authoring in XML these days
Why not?
Because:
...
FWIW, I disagree (but I realize that I'm probably in a minority). The
problem with Markdown is that the simple things are easy, but everything
else gets messy. I'm looking forward to see how you kram (pun intended)
the V3 features into your tool...
but that was the way things were done in 2010.
I’m prepared to stick with that, unless there is something better about the alternatives.
Right, for a minor update, digging out the v1 tools and finding a platform where they can still run may actually be the best way to proceed.
All you need is a TCL processor. Works fine over here on a newly
installed notebook with Windows 10 and Cygwin.
Best regards, Julian
