From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On
Behalf Of Christian Huitema
Hence the desire to have the RFC Editor use xml2rfc, rather than
nroff.
I don't think publishing the xml2rfc test is such a good
idea. Xml2rfc is a preparation format. The printed result is
a combination of the xml2rfc input and a formatting program
of some kind. This formatting program is bound to change over
time, e.g. when templates change. You want to archive the
final result, not the initial input.
Why do you think that?
What you want to do is to get as close as possible to the original
author's intent.
Over time the publication media is going to change. In time very idea of
'print' is going to become an anacronism. If you have a large, high
speed, high resolution display and the ability to comment on the text
paper is a distinctly inferior technology.
Electronic documents do not behave in the same way that people imaging
paper ones do, but paper documents do behave that way either, get over
it.
At the end of the day the real authoritative version of the standard is
the bits on the wire. Any specification that is not updated on a regular
basis - five years or less is going to diverge from reality to a much
greater degree than any imaginable difference in formatting templates.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf