Joe Touch wrote:
requires users to enter data into XML fields, which can
be very tedious. it also assumes that the XML editor can be
loaded with the current IETF RFC DTD, which is by no means
guaranteed or easy
Authors could create their own input format, transformed into
the 2629bis XML by a script. Something like "Wiki" would be
far more than good enough, and that's not very tedious.
An XML editor not knowing the latest and greatest DTD would
still guarantee proper nesting of tags. And if authors use
US ASCII as document charset their worst problem would be to
convince their XML editor that symbolic entities like &nbhy;
are no nonsense, but defined in the xml2rfc DTD.
If authors use UTF-8 (or anything else that's not ASCII) they
deserve to be in serious trouble for the resulting text/plain
output, that's a point for the I18N considerations in a future
2629bis
AFAICT, Word uses its own DTD, and isn't particularly
cooperative with using your own
Maybe Word isn't an ideal XML-editor then. Any decent text
editor will do. If authors don't like vi or notepad they use
something else. My favourite text editor is based on XEDIT,
about 23 years old.
I do think that an XML-based encoding of RFC contents is
a good idea
I do not; there is very little in RFCs that needs to be
tagged except:
MIBs
lists of authors
lists of references
That list is not complete, e.g. you forgot to mention ABNF.
Another point are the keywords for many RfCs, example:
http://purl.net/net/rfc/2070
http://tools.ietf.org/html/2070
The latter tool doesn't "see" some meta-data like keywords,
because it's not part of the ASCII version. But it's simple
to specify meta-data in an XML version.
Bye, Frank
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf