Doug Otis wrote:
...
On Jul 13, 2009, at 1:10 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
The "experimental" version (http://xml.resource.org/experimental.html)
is as stable as predecessor versions; the main reason it hasn't been
released is that the authors (IMHO) expected more boilerplate changes
to occur.
And what exactly do you mean by "cryptic entries"?
There was little documentation for what would satisfy the nit checker a
few months ago. It was a challenge to know what was needed for the rfc
structure. The needed ipr parameter appeared rather cryptic.
...
Well, the @ipr value needs to capture several dimensions, such as type
of IPR *and* time scale (because the IETF rules keep changing). Of
course the values could be made less cryptic, but this seems to be
something of a bike shed discussion, as long as the values a well
documented.
I think the right approach is to either help maintaining the TCL code,
or to rewrite xml2rfc in a different language.
To support the generation of MHTML, as some have suggested, the logical
intermediary format seems to be XSLT (for defining xml2rfc constructs).
We have that already (xml2rfc->XSLT->(X)HTML), in case you didn't notice.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2557
http://people.dsv.su.se/~jpalme/ietf/mhtml.html
IMHO, pre-processors with roff might offer simpler and cleaner inputs,
especially for the vision impaired. A post process could then generate
simpler MHTML formats.
Best regards, Julian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf