On first reading this seems to be an interesting way to go.
It seems to be heading in the right general direction, but
I wonder why it does not concentrate on specifying inputs
rather than outputs. Given that XML is now widely used as the
input format for RFCs, it seems worthwhile to review the bits
of XML-related stuff that are mature enough for use for writers.
For instance, SVG for diagrams and PNG for images, standard
CSS for tables.
Of course, there has to be a defined standard reporitory output
for "publishing" the RFCs, but that already seems to be PS/PDF.
If the IETF defines a standard input format, and the XML2RFC
toolset is updated to support that toolset and output PS/PDF
format for the repository, then that takes care of the format issue.
Then there is only one file, not two or three. And the toolset could
feasibly generate a text file plus PS/PDF images only format, as an
alternate output if that is desired. Or SWF output files, or TGZ
file with a folder containing HTML and separate files for each SVG
diagram or PNG image. No need to choose, just prioritise.
Stylistic issues are quite separate, although they should probably
also be specified up front if it keeps things more orderly. I'd suggest
avoiding numbering images/diagrams in favor of naming them. E.g. see
diagram former-state-machine or refer to image original-napkin-notes.
--Michael Dillon
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf