Yaakov Stein schrieb:
I would say that getting always the same printout is a non-goal.
Why? As has been stated previously, in most SDOs the "printed page"
is the final word. One of the many inconveniences of xml2rfc is the need
to add "vspace blankLines" to avoid unfortunate page breaks.
Because it's sufficient to generate the ASCII version once on
publication and then keep it. Keeping the source is essential for
completely separate tasks (meta data extraction, document revision,
generating other formats such as HTML or PDF).
You're comparing apples and oranges here.
For instance, you could use XSL-FO (an XML format...) which also is
closer to presentation markup than the RFC2629 XML format.
Why should the IETF be inventing new tools to create documents at all?
Why aren't we focusing on developing protocols for the IP world,
and adopting existing tools for the mundane task of document creation?
So far the IETF hasn't done that. The format is ASCII.
One good reason to use a specific XML grammar is that when the only
thing that's available is a presentation-oriented format (such as Word
or PDF), it gets *much* harder to do meaningful things with the source.
And that's one of the reasons why volunteers maintain xml2rfc (both the
format itself and various implementations). Speaking of which, that's
probably the reason why the W3C is doing the same with their xmlspec XML
format.
Best regards, Julian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf