IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rfc-i] v3 transition and datatracker

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Wed, 18 September 2019 16:29 UTC

Return-Path: <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CB4E120106 for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 09:29:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GXKRToRG5Ve7 for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 09:29:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B38BA12006A for <rfc-interest-archive-eekabaiReiB1@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 09:29:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAF3FB80D1E; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 09:28:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Delivered-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFADEB80D1E for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 09:28:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Received: from rfc-editor.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rfcpa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WH-daX83n6hT for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 09:28:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outgoing-alum.mit.edu (outgoing-alum.mit.edu [18.7.68.33]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C4BFB80D1B for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 09:28:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Kokiri.localdomain (c-24-62-227-142.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [24.62.227.142]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as pkyzivat@ALUM.MIT.EDU) by outgoing-alum.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id x8IGT4hN011820 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 12:29:05 -0400
To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
References: <25994.1568818110@localhost>
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
Message-ID: <df4f2fb5-40b8-9c0c-300a-989bab9fe3c4@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 12:29:04 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <25994.1568818110@localhost>
Content-Language: en-US
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] v3 transition and datatracker
X-BeenThere: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions." <rfc-interest.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

On 9/18/19 10:48 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
> 
> One of the authors in CELLAR who is using XML v3 says:
> 
>>   I tried with FFV1 version 4 but don’t see a difference. At
>>   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cellar-ffv1-v4/
>>   <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cellar-ffv1-v4/> in the XML
>>   link you can see the svg data in the XML but the HTML and PDF links show
>>   the ASCII art rather than the SVG and the <sourceblock> sections have
>>   their line returns stripped. So I don’t see any difference here since I
>>   last posted FFV1 version 0,1,3 on September 6th.
> 
> It seems that we ought to be generating the HTML and PDF from the v3 using
> XML2RFC directly rather than going XML->TXT->HTML{->PDF}.

As I noted previously, having the HTML output match the plaintext output 
line for line is a valuable feature. I would hate to see this regress.

I realize that this also loses some of the attractiveness of the HTML. 
Maybe there is a need for two different HTML versions.

	Thanks,
	Paul

> This is no doubt because the DT still depends upon the tools.ietf page for
> HTML version.   As such, nobody can see the nicer versions of output.
> 
> What is the plan?
> (Is this work contracted somewhere?)
> 
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
>   -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
> 

_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email