Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal draft formatting standards required

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Mon, 13 July 2009 20:10 UTC

Return-Path: <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED8473A6C82 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Jul 2009 13:10:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.256
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.256 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.657, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 17P1GGg1Or2v for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Jul 2009 13:10:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 32FBA3A6A16 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Jul 2009 13:10:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 13 Jul 2009 20:10:35 -0000
Received: from p508FE94A.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.178.33]) [80.143.233.74] by mail.gmx.net (mp046) with SMTP; 13 Jul 2009 22:10:35 +0200
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19M6hw/FqRMmqP6FsoY3pL2EPPOjEqman3oeCVmhG mycZPqm0Vn/Vs3
Message-ID: <4A5B94AE.30506@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 22:10:22 +0200
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de; rv:1.8.0.4) Gecko/20060516 Thunderbird/1.5.0.4 Mnenhy/0.7.4.666
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Douglas Otis <dotis@mail-abuse.org>
Subject: Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal draft formatting standards required
References: <01ACD6EF5D2742A1832D0D585B2185F4@DGBP7M81><410BE357-1AE2-4E60-AB97-ED449A821DBF@mail-abuse.org><7CBFBEC8464443A695EB3636E4E41604@DGBP7M81> <86ljmt63fn.fsf@betla.izb.knu.ac.kr> <E5D652AAB53B42699B4890D9B43DD946@DGBP7M81> <6D09C7E5-007A-46D3-8302-8682C1473B60@mail-abuse.org>
In-Reply-To: <6D09C7E5-007A-46D3-8302-8682C1473B60@mail-abuse.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
X-FuHaFi: 0.6
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 20:10:28 -0000

Douglas Otis wrote:
> ...
> Use of xml2rfc conversions has uncovered some odd quirks.  The tool does 
> not cache bibliographic database selections.  Either this works on-line, 
> or the entire database needs to be local.  Not to diminish the service 
> offered by Carl Malamud, occasional sporadic connections to the 
> xml.resource.org servers can be a cause of angst for authors who have 
 > ...

If it hurts, don't do it.

Translation: if you don't want to rely on network resources, keep a 
local copy. I recommend that anyway, so that the xml2rfc input file is 
self-contained.

Relying on external references for internet drafts is fragile anyway: 
that the reference automatically updates to the latest version may look 
handy, but may cause authors to miss important changes.

> ...
> not obtained the entire tarred xml bibliographic database.  Lately, the 
> dependability of the xml2rfc approach has become less reliable when 
> dealing with cryptic entries and beta TCL needed to generate I-D 
> boilerplate language as required by nit checker.
> ...

The "experimental" version (http://xml.resource.org/experimental.html) 
is as stable as predecessor versions; the main reason it hasn't been 
released is that the authors (IMHO) expected more boilerplate changes to 
occur.

And what exactly do you mean by "cryptic entries"?

> This makes one wonder whether there could be a better way.  A hybrid 
> approach might offer the similar features found in xml2rfc with the 
> simpler the inputs supported by 'roff.  This would not exclude the use 
> of Word, but would not depend upon any of Word's content automations.  
> Perhaps a bit of Perl could provide the pre and post processors to 
> handle something that resembles the xml2rfc front section.  While roff 
> is not perfect, it has been more stable than other WISIWYG word 
> processors and, when used in conjunction with separate pre/post 
> processors, can generate the desired alternative outputs.

I think the right approach is to either help maintaining the TCL code, 
or to rewrite xml2rfc in a different language.

BR; Julian