On 2008-01-17 09:30, Frank Ellermann wrote:
The IESG wrote:
Have IONs been valuable? Should we continue to make use of
this mechanism?
Yes and yes.
I'm biased, having helped to start this experiment, but my only
criticism is that we haven't made enough use of it (i.e. there
are a number of IETF procedural documents that are ripe for
republishing as IONs). So, +1 for yes and yes.
I like them even better if they are published
in a plain text format similar to Internet-Drafts. The IETF
tool "rfcmarkup" can produce sound HTML and diffs for I-Ds.
There are two formats allowed for IONS - html and plain text
(but not both for the same document). However, almost all of
those published so far previously existed as xml2rfc source,
so they've been IONized and htmlized using xml2rfc. If you
value the hyperlinks (which I do, especially in a case like
http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/ions/ion-procdocs.html), it
seems more logical to use xml2rfc than to have rfcmarkup
guess the links.
In the interests of science, I processed ion-procdocs through
xml2rfc to plain text. The result is at
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~brian/ion-procdocs.txt
(There is one very minor formatting glitch that I didn't debug.)
Then I processed the txt through rfcmarkup:
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~brian/ion-procdocs-rfcmarkup.htm
It would be interesting to know which of the above three versions
people prefer.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf