Hi -
From: "Julian Reschke" <julian(_dot_)reschke(_at_)gmx(_dot_)de>
To: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn(_at_)mindspring(_dot_)com>
Cc: "IETF Discussion Mailing List" <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 10:13 AM
Subject: Re: Automatically updated Table of Contents with Nroff
...
Point is: nroff and xml2rfc share the advantage that they are simple
text based formats, which can be put under version control, and
collaborative editing/change control just works. Missing features can
simply implemented using automated pre- or post-processing stages.
...
With respect to boilerplate, xml2rfc lacks this advantage.
*It* generates the boilerplate; the user has no way of knowing whether
the option present in the source file will result in the same output
text today as it did yesterday.
I've been using xml2fc extensively since it came out, and I've *never* seen a
case where the boilerplate changed for a given combination of ipr setting and
date. Moreover, I would regard any such change as a bug, not a feature.
From a configuration management /
revision control perspective, this is highly undesirable.
it would be if it happened. AFAIK it does not.
It would be
much better to be able to "#include" a versioned source file for
those bits.
I strongly disagree. An *overwhelming* advantage of xml2rfc is that it takes
care of boilerplate and I rarely if ever have to think about it, much less
having to arrange for a set of include files to be available. Blech on that.
Ned
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf