Subject: RE: XML2RFC submission (was Re: ASCII art)

From: "Christian Huitema" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 11:55:06 -0800

> Hence the desire to have the RFC Editor use xml2rfc, rather than
nroff.

I don't think publishing the xml2rfc test is such a good idea. Xml2rfc
is a preparation format. The printed result is a combination of the
xml2rfc input and a formatting program of some kind. This formatting
program is bound to change over time, e.g. when templates change. You
want to archive the final result, not the initial input.

-- Christian Huitema

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 12:08:27 -0800

>  Xml2rfc
> is a preparation format. 

so is nroff.

>The printed result is a combination of the
> xml2rfc input and a formatting program of some kind. 

so is the current nroff-produced text.

d/
-- 

Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
<http://bbiw.net>

---

From: Joe Abley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 22:47:07 -0500

> xml2rfc input and a formatting program of some kind.

It's a small point, but actually xml2rfc is one of those formatting  
programs. The preparation format is XML using the 2629 DTD (or a  
subsequently refinement of it). There are other formatting programs.

Joe

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 09:55:55 +0100

Christian Huitema wrote:
> ...

*I* would want to archive both.

Best regards, Julian