There is not currently a version of xml2rfc that meets our
needs.
I do not recall seeing any input from the RFC Editor, on the XML2RFC mailing
list, citing xml2rfc's deficiencies.
That makes it difficult to get those deficiencies fixed.
Please, please, please. Post those deficiencies to that list.
The
issue arises from handing you a format that contains generic
markup and is editable but, because of your "via nroff" process,
requires authors to deduce substantive and editorial changes
from diffs and then retrofit them back into the XML for future
use.
This point has been made a number of times, recently. Its importance appears to
remain under-appreciated.
IETF documents are subject to revision by new editors. They currently find it
difficult or impossible to ensure that they are starting from the correct master
version.
To the extent that they must start from the .txt version, they have significant
startup costs (with significant potential for introducing new errors) in order
to convert the document to a format better suited to editing -- e.g., better
able to manipulate the document's structure.
What the IETF community needs is to be able to obtain an accurate,
revisable-form version of published documents. xml2rfc is the best candidate
for that form. We therefore need to find a way for the RFC Editor to maintain
the master version of RFCs in that form.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
<http://bbiw.net>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf