IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rfc-i] Epub format tools

Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> Tue, 22 November 2016 16:54 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 0BDE71294A8 for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Nov 2016 08:54:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.587
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.587 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=gmail.com
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 8nhU5GSicISF for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Nov 2016 08:54:47 -0800 (PST)
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 C2D5712947B for <rfc-interest-archive-eekabaiReiB1@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Nov 2016 08:54:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 569CCB80239; Tue, 22 Nov 2016 08:54:47 -0800 (PST)
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 3FF40B80239 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 22 Nov 2016 08:54:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Authentication-Results: rfcpa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 NQYv-v4Ts3LZ for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 22 Nov 2016 08:54:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wj0-x22f.google.com (mail-wj0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c01::22f]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 05F00B80238 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 22 Nov 2016 08:54:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wj0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id v7so45093225wjy.2 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 22 Nov 2016 08:54:43 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=pIHrQrfHJKCYzUfEB3p2ZgpSzVwEgT5UIaDWFsl6WxM=; b=kt8xps43XUNGSnQ7B39eTEC9apwyjADVcgC3YYiB7rqAnwFaFXYA6Izon67aycY3i7 e8hX4E3ZUZoyYVPX0XQAYXe59wnYij2xzY8A6GjvmxRP6WVd3LVCRE45//U1IxqGFBf6 GgtvDKjOQq5+6lVZUVZvwvRRnLGpr0Xx1DDr5nAc+pkTDRxMcHYoh0k/SVXWDMnnY/ks OWTYfdB2gGVDz4U7coJi66wFXvoBLkPu1yoEmLQmEDq/Cmz6Q9n+TMiG8idPotWP4BRT zNiYQVDR+Olyr1VEgG102YjEv+z0ry7jwTBXAB5p67C36IGbqziY1Z/lxjNpQYAFD0KT +rFQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=pIHrQrfHJKCYzUfEB3p2ZgpSzVwEgT5UIaDWFsl6WxM=; b=e+4r8c96IC/nCRQ12YbKDSWOUIaK5/Ypp69eM/aNKgaKPINNJDCIU+7oH0xMqF7QIw y7snVA2Mvw4RmRxWyUgKaBc2Rx3dKW4iiZ5Xr3FvdVXI18dOcu/tJEddF3pmf8aDLxks A14gKIRFjJqshof317C2SmycCq22GxKXKeZW7ZQ8qPahu/Xu5gy0PnoaocxxbvGWgCAC Hsm+DIhYUbt2+e3i1J8tsXgLqAIXoobOwJYJnSNt9dt2yPfzg4eToKGCzA/jPO0xH9HC YCQi6fOvpUEmZ4OCAHCK0LVf+Lct9/wb/LZO7GltEFPrl3njK9NVpFcLNvyPDgGJUj9E /QEA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC00pIarCPZh8OyeKY3sFUglSGd/sdewxBxLYrkHM1zqawkfjVY2NniOiGBhtbMkgqmeQQNZHncay3z+VIw==
X-Received: by 10.194.14.196 with SMTP id r4mr18311465wjc.54.1479833682614; Tue, 22 Nov 2016 08:54:42 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.194.3.41 with HTTP; Tue, 22 Nov 2016 08:54:41 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <059a8209-9998-e101-bbab-c8820c75b88e@gmx.de>
References: <CAMm+LwiPYuvnYkGmxt51-osVwGzak6SVvsNrfNOUXMO8LFQ4dw@mail.gmail.com> <7B942896-8F81-4EC0-AB4D-A232FEA5ADC7@att.com> <CAMm+LwgdqVtXQJNSrM1ovPTq5zi_NvddN=-b=WOvXh10fJoo7g@mail.gmail.com> <059a8209-9998-e101-bbab-c8820c75b88e@gmx.de>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 11:54:41 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: o4euJk_vKJ94oxR_XFiNgtueIiM
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwjhiYVfL-gJtVErv=OmiYJvWSdbAq0TBEqT+P25tFjqVQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Epub format tools
X-BeenThere: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21
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>
Cc: "rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org" <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>, "HANSEN, TONY L" <tony@att.com>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============3829344168631136262=="
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: "rfc-interest" <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
wrote:

> On 2016-11-22 17:22, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>
>> They seem to have already done all the work on deciding what HTML
>> features to use. And they have a well developed tool chain.
>>
>> Why reinvent the wheel?
>>
>
> What problem do you want to solve exactly? Is this an attempt to undo the
> work on the new RFC format?
>
> Best regards, Julian
>

​We don't seem to be getting there very fast. ​At the current rate of
progress and given the resources currently available, I don't expect to be
able to use the new format till 2020.

The epub folk have a fully developed infrastructure supported by a mature
tool chain that is designed by people with experience of actually solving
these issues.

When it comes to code, I am utterly ruthless about consigning my own code
to the bit bucket when there is something better available. And I am even
more willing to drop other people's.

But in this case, it looks to me as if quite a few of those tools already
solve gaps in the system. How we organize composite documents for upload
for example. I don't see any reason for the IETF upload format to look any
different to the epub format with an XML2RFC document in place of the XHTML
files.

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

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email