when the RFC does use
xml2rfc for
most of the editing process getting back a revised XML spec from the RFC
Editor
that has all the changes made prior to the nroff step would be a HUGE
improvement. The time needed to retrofit all the RFC Editor changes into
the
XML is nonnegligable - I wish I didn't epeak from recent experience, but
I do.
Agree completely.
1. Constraining the initial requirement -- for maintaining the master in xml2rfc
format -- to apply only to documents that are submitted to the RFC Editor in
that format -- that is, the RFC Editor does not create a conversion, they merely
retain the format -- strikes me as far too pragmatic to disagree with, and for
the reason you cite.
2. Given that the RFC Editor has the current practice of converting .txt
submissions to nroff, it is equally reasonable to pursue their changing that
conversion, to instead be into xml2rfc. By 'equally reasonable' I mean as a
parallel effort, on its own schedule. As with any transition, the folks doing
the work need to remain productive; this requires concessions in the details of
the transition process.
3. I believe that we should not plan to prohibit nroff submissions, for the
foreseeable future. I'd rather deprecate the activity by virtue of community
preference than by imposition of a rule.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
<http://bbiw.net>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf