ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: RFCs should be distributed in XML

2005-11-08 19:24:52
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:

 [your premise snipped ;-]
tell why RFC 2629 is not the mandatory official
format for RFC, even now after six years?

It's an excellent tool to create real drafts and
RfCs.  For "real" read text/plain us-ascii in the
format defined elsewhere (2223bis among others).

It's not the only available tool.  Bruce is the
maintainer of the nroff tools, and somebody else
offers MS word tools.

The tools team apparently adopted RfC 2629 as the
primary format for the automatical handling of
submissions, and one of the "document set" drafts
also builds on this format.

Just let it be, eventually it will be as you want
it.  Numerous tools like rfcmarkup still build on
the "real" format, and nothing's wrong with that.

With xml2rfc you can now also create unpaginated
output, nice for creating / posting a quick diff.
That feature was added this year, it's still a
living project, last DTD updates also this year.

The EULA boilerplates (= 78/79) are also still a
moving target (unfortunately).  This is all not
yet ready to be cast in stone.  Only the general
direction is IMHO more or less clear.  Bye, Frank



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

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