*>
*>
*> Hence the desire to have the RFC Editor use xml2rfc, rather than nroff.
*>
Dave,
I am afraid you are injecting confusion. Use nroff for what? The RFC
Editor does not publish nroff, it publishes ASCII text. The tool we
use to prepare ASCII for publication happens to be nroff, because it is
simple, effective, and efficient.
The RFC Editor has experimented with using xml2rfc for this purpose,
and found it awkward and inefficent for producing properly formatted
ASCII text. But the two issues of primary concern to the IETF should
be the acceptable input formats (currently ASCII text and/or RFC 2629
XML) and the desired publication format(s).
The issues under discussion should be: (1) whether the RFC Editor
should publish RFCs in some XML-based structural document descriptor
language, (2) whether this should be in particular the DTD defined in
RFC 2629, (3) whether an XML version should be co-authoritative with an
ASCII version or should be primary or secondary to the ASCII version,
(4) if an XML version is to be published as authoritative, how to
ensure that it is correct and consistent with the ASCII version, if
any.
All this is independent of the fact that xml2rfc is a boon to authors.
That is true today, but it has little to do with the publication process
or the publication format.
Bob Braden
*> Were there still regular use of nroff in the broad community, there might
be
*> an argument in favor of continuing to have it as the internal
representation
*> of authoritative rfc text.
*>
*> But there isn't. Whereas xml2rfc has been gaining broad (and
enthusiastic)
*> adoption.
*>
*> d/
*>
*> --
*>
*> Dave Crocker
*> Brandenburg InternetWorking
*> <http://bbiw.net>
*>
*> _______________________________________________
*> Ietf mailing list
*> Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
*> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
*>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf