Subject: RE: A modest proposal - allow the ID repository to hold xml

From: "Rosen, Brian" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 14:14:33 -0400

The problem with nroff is that there is no RFC to reference that
specifies how a document is formatted with nroff.  There is wide
variation in the macro packages people use to create a document
with nroff.  Even the RFC editor doesn't try hard to get the nroff
source when editing; they make their own. 

I'm also trying pretty hard to keep the word "modest" I used in the
title of this thread in mind.  I'd like to try one simple thing to 
make I-Ds easier to read and use.  

Brian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Zefram [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 1:56 PM
> To: Rosen, Brian
> Cc: [email-masked]'
> Subject: Re: A modest proposal - allow the ID repository to hold xml
> 
> 
> Rosen, Brian wrote:
> >Allow the submission of an xml file meeting the requirements 
> of RFC2629
> >along with the text file (and optional ps file) for an 
> Internet Draft.
> 
> The value in this would be that it provides everyone with the document
> source, suitable for generating patches for the author.  This 
> is useful,
> but if it's going to be allowed with XML then we should also allow it
> with nroff, which historically we haven't.  I don't have particularly
> strong feelings either way, but I do think these two cases should be
> treated equivalently.
> 
> -zefram
>

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2003 11:34:25 -0600

Rosen, Brian wrote:
> specifies how a document is formatted with nroff.

RFC 2223 has an nroff example, see "Appendix - RFC "nroff macros"
and section "3.  Format Rules" says "ms" macro package.

-- 

  Doug Royer                     |   http://INET-Consulting.com
  -------------------------------|-----------------------------
  [email-masked]                 | Office: (208)612-INET
  http://Royer.com/People/Doug   |    Fax: (866)594-8574
                                 |   Cell: (208)520-4044

                 We Do Standards - You Need Standards

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2003 10:33:04 -0700 (PDT)

> make I-Ds easier to read and use.

I agree 100%. While it is nice to dream about charters being available through
rsync, making "official" HTML versions of all RFCs available, allow submission
of HTML versions of drafts, submission of drafts to the RFC Editor in XML
format, requiring XML for drafts, inclusion of bitmapped graphics in documents,
or any of the other things that have been proposed as additions to the original
modest proposal, these sorts of broader changes are far more difficult to
implement and will be far more difficult to reach consensus on.

Baby steps are in order here. Let's start small and see how it goes.

				Ned