IETF Logo Mail Archive

[rfc-i] v3 transition and datatracker

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 18 September 2019 14:48 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 A1411120871 for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 07:48:38 -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 GMb0rulWa_ke for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 07:48:36 -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 DCC81120889 for <rfc-interest-archive-eekabaiReiB1@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 07:48:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37D40B8187C; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 07:48:24 -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 BA999B8187C for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 07:48:22 -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 pT67GDilPtdd for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 07:48:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 111F0B81879 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 07:48:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 841743897B; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 10:46:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9796F560; Wed, 18 Sep 2019 10:48:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: tools-discuss@ietf.org, rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-Attribution: mcr
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 10:48:30 -0400
Message-ID: <25994.1568818110@localhost>
Subject: [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-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============7145715319640299937=="
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

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}.

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email