Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I liked the I-D better, the xml2rfc HTML output is hard to read.
Really? I find the links in the HTML version invaluable.
Me too, but I prefer the "rfcmarkup" HTML version of the I-D, for
starters it uses a monospaced font, it doesn't spice the output
with character references not supported by my stoneage mozilla-3,
and where it uses comma-separated lists of RFCs or I-Ds they are
visually clearly separated:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carpenter-procdoc-roadmap
Maybe you could get a similar effect if you pipe the "unpaginated"
xml2rfc output into "rfcmarkup". This procedure would kill UTF-8
and meta data, however. Something is missing, probably xml2rfc
needs an additional output style XHTML resulting in an emulation
of rfcmarkup style, but using UTF-8, and preserving any meta data.
Frank
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf