On Nov 29, 2005, at 1:53 PM, Gray, Eric wrote:
One issue with to quickly responding to Bob's earlier
questions is that the XML version - as Christian has already
said - cannot be the authoritative/normative version of an
RFC. I would qualify that someone by allowing that an XML
version cannot be authoritative/normative unless it is
completely self contained. And, by self contained, I mean
there MUST be an absolute, positively concrete guarantee
that every time we process it, it will always produce exactly
the same text.
The value in retaining input files used to generate the authoritative/
normative version of an RFC is to facilitate subsequent updates.
While the bibliography section could be seen as dynamic for an ID,
RFC references will provide static results. Boilerplates provided
within conversion tools help expedite conformance to current
requirements. What problem is created considering the XML version of
the draft as non-authoritative? Nevertheless, some effort should be
made to manage the bibliography reference library related to the
IETF, to ensure consistent conversions.
An additional benefit could be seen as permitting a larger diversity
of output formats. While indeed the current ASCII text RFCs may be
suitable vehicles for conveying information, they lack convenience
such as hyper-links to reference information. The current XML2RFC
tools provides for both the text and HTML output forms of this
document. It would not be difficult to include a PDF output that
also provides hyper-link capabilities.
Full graphic capabilities may not be a desired goal, as a million
words may still be required to clarify the intent of a complex
picture. In nearly all RFCs, the artwork offering tables describing
the format of binary structures offers the greatest benefit. ASCII
artwork may not draw perfect lines, but this is really a matter of
character-sets. Should the IETF consider definitions to cover
optional characters for drawing table borders and lines? Does this
get extended into also allowing international characters for author's
names?
Clearly an XML input file allows for a greater diversity of outputs.
Perhaps, with some effort, more than just the text form of the RFC
can be considered authoritative. The XML input would not need to be
considered authoritative to achieve such a goal. Allowing access to
these XML documents will reduce the burden on authors attempting to
make corrections and highlighting what changes are being made, beyond
the boilerplates and format changes, etc.
-Doug
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf