Re: A plug for XXE (Re: Alternative formats for IDs)



Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:



--On 13. januar 2006 22:40 -0800 Joe Touch <touch(_at_)ISI(_dot_)EDU> wrote:

I haven't used it for "production" yet, but it looks wonderful - not
WYSIWYG, but WYSIPU - What You See Is Pretty Useful.


Pretty useful compared to text-editing the source code, yes. Compared to
WYSIWYG, still primitive, unfortunately.

If the goal is to allow the output - i.e., the RFC - to be useful for
data mining, why not allow the XML tags to be used *just* for the
portions that we expect to extract (i.e., for the data to be mined), and
let WYSIWYG editors format the rest of the document structure.

I.e., let each tool be used where it works?


FWIW - I hate WYSIWYG with a passion.
I *never* want to consider pages, fonts, indentation, section numbers or
justification when I'm typing. I want to get the text in there, mark
clearly where the sections are, make my lists as lists, and *get the
text written*.

Then I want to get it readable with minimal effort - and be able to
change it later *without* having to guess at the difference between a
section heading and a line that just happens to start with a number.


I agree completely. Everything you're describing is a function of
WYSIWYG with named styles - which is what it has been for 20+ years,
rather than just "make this bold", "make this 12pt". That's the WYSIWYG
I was assuming (style-WYSIWYG?).

Every system I've seen to date for XML tries very hard to approach what
S-WYSIWYG was capable of 20+ years ago. While some XML editors are
certainly better than editing source, it's nowhere near as capable as
S-WYSIWYG.

Semantic markup works for me - for the *whole* document.


Agreed, but my point is that there's no reason to force each of us to
use a particular semantic markup where the semantics of the result are
not relevant. There's no utility to plowing through all the markup
associated with lists and headings, when that's not what data needs to
be mined.

What I'm proposing is that RFCs use text/PDF/PS as the archived,
authoritative file (sure - we can argue about which of those three, or
maybe others), but that to extract MIBs/authors/references those tags
need to be in the authoritative version, but the others do not.

Joe

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf