>> 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.
Absolutely.
> 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.
These are issues even when the editor doesn't change.
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.
While I agree that this needs to be the goal, when the RFC does use xml2rfc for
most of the editing process getting back a revised XML spec from the RFC Editor
that has all the changes made prior to the nroff step would be a HUGE
improvement. The time needed to retrofit all the RFC Editor changes into the
XML is nonnegligable - I wish I didn't epeak from recent experience, but I do.
For once let's not let the best be the enemy of the good.
Ned
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf