On 12.03.2010 04:42, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
+1 on all of this, one comment though:
> ...
> As a pragmatic fact, XML2RFC has practically replaced the ASCII format
> RFC as the canonical form already. The only obstacles are the IETF
> tools that deliberately and insultingly make it difficult to access
> the HTML version.
>
> We could easily move to a world where all that was required to produce
> an RFC was an XML version and that the RFC editor made all chances to
> the XML version as canonical. Instead we have this weird little game
> where the XML is converted into nroff, edits are made there and the
> result becomes the canonical.
> ...
My understanding is that the RFC Editor indeed is editing the XML (if
available), and only converts to NROFF at the very end.
That's correct. I just went through the process for RFC 5784. We submitted XML,
got back revised XML that could easily be compared to what we submitted,
revised that and returned it, and iterated in that fashion until it was done.
This is maybe the third time I've done an RFC this way. The nroff part of the
process is for all intents and purposes invisible now, unless of course you
insist on submitting nroff to begin with. I have no idea how it works if you do
that, and since I'm completely comfortable with XML source and using xml2rfc, I
don't plan on finding out.
Indeed, at this point the process could change to produce additional or
different final forms (e.g., HTML) and I basically wouldn't notice.
Ned
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf