At Mon, 26 Nov 2007 11:21:05 +0100,
Eliot Lear wrote:
At Mon, 26 Nov 2007 11:21:05 +0100,
Eliot Lear wrote:
Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 11:58 PM +0200 11/25/07, Jari Arkko wrote:
Paul,
They still should (strongly) consider checking the validity of the XML
by comparing it to what the IESG approved.
Yes, and they do compare to what IESG approved. Substantial changes are
brought to the AD's approval. This is what caused us to find the problem
in this case.
I'm confused. Why should the RFC Editor accept XML with any
substantial changes? That's inherently prone to error. They should
start with what was approved.
This argues that XML files be submitted as the authoritative source at
the time of WGLC, Paul, if they are going to be submitted at all, and
the I-D manager generates the text. I'm fine with that, by the way.
Actually I think this is backwards.
The text file is the authoritative reference, as always. The XML
file, when processed with xml2rfc, must generate text which is
identical to the text file.
-Ekr
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf