ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different threads - IETF Document Format

2009-07-05 15:38:32
On 5 jul 2009, at 16:22, Dave Nelson wrote:

I suppose if there were indeed a *standard* word processor, this might
be feasible, but I think by "standard issue" you mean "commercially
available".

Standard issue = standard, typical. I used it in the sense of "any decent".

Any word processor can create styles the way I talked about, such as Word, Pages, OpenOffice, just to name the ones that I know are still around. The only problem converting a style-tagged document to draft/ RFC format or whatever archival format we end up using in the future.

The obvious way to do this would be to interpret the XML that each of these produce, but the problem is that they each have their own format, with little interoperation. Word 97 .doc format is the de facto lingua franca in the word processing world, but this is an inconvenient format. Rich text (RTF) format would probably be best. This format is fairly limited, but we only need the text itself and the styles so it should be more than sufficient. It's also a text- based format.

On 5 jul 2009, at 18:01, Joel M. Halpern wrote:

So I am very confused why you are asking us to kill a tool that was produced by volunteers, works very well, and that many people use by choice.

You're right, I shouldn't use the word "die". The blog post by ekr that I linked to in my first message talked about how XML2RFC has become a de facto requirement because of the outdated formatting requirements that can only be met with XML2RFC or even quainter tools. This is what I'm having problems with. Of course if people are happy with XML2RFC, that's fine.

I have seen some folks arguing that we should make XML2RFC normative and mandatory. If they can figure out how to automatically and accurate convert the other mechanisms people use, then that can be considered.

Ah, but that's impossible, unless you add an AI to the conversion tool that comes up with the semantic annontations that were never in the source.

On 5 jul 2009, at 19:04, Doug Ewell wrote:

The point about capitalizing Dutch names wrong is an important localization issue, since people's names are important, but treating it as a fatal flaw in the premise of "encode meaning, not presentation" seems to weaken the overall argument. It's a bug.

It's not a bug, it shows that the basic premise behind XML2RFC is untenable.




What we need is the ability to write drafts with a standard issue word processor. I'm sure that sentence conjured up nightmares of Word documents with insane formatting being mailed around clueless beaurocracies, but that's not what I mean. Word processors use styles to tag headings, text, quotes, lists and so on: the exact same stuff that you can do in XML but rather than having to think about it (especially closing all tags correctly) it happens easily, automatically and without getting in the way. (I can even change the style for an entire paragraph with a single menu selection or function key without having to find the beginnings and ends of that paragraph.)

I fear this will run into the ground instantly, if the anti- Microsoft faction insists on a single "standard issue" word processor that is unfamiliar to most users. The same problems with learning to use a new tool will apply.

It sounds like what people really want is a more comprehensive system that would allow I-D authors to use xml2rfc, roff, Word, LaTeX, or basically any tool they like, not a great policy reversal that replaces one mandatory tool with another. Given the level of effort involved and user expectations, especially concerning support for the latest updates to the IP boilerplate, this would be beyond the scope of volunteer developers; it would require professional developers with a professional development budget.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Thornton, Colorado, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://www.ewellic.org
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages  ˆ

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

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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>