Re: [Rswg] The immutability shibboleth [was: draft-thomson-rswg-syntax-change call for adoption]

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

John C Klensin <[e-mail]> wrote:
    >> While I'm a proponent of "original XML" being always available, and
    >> I'm also happy to have fixed XML available, I do wonder if there are
    >> any real people in front of browsers who actually ever want to push
    >> the XML button. (vs wget it, pipe to some utility...)

    > At least one, assuming you think I'm real.  I admit very rarely but,
    > when I'm called upon to edit a document I didn't write to prepare a new
    > one, that is exactly what I want to do.

Most of us prefer to edit kramdown, and we are only just getting to the point
where the original document was in XML.
Until that's more common, we are using Carsten's tool to upgrade .txt to .md.

    >> Yes, I'm arguing that "XML file for editing" is probably all the
    >> reference we need to the XML, and we don't actually need that XML
    >> button.

    > Then how would you propose to get it and whose permission do you think
    > the [new] author should need?  Also note that, as long as we claim the

The "XML file for editing" button gives you the unprepped file, which is what
you want for editing.  It's permission less.  Why would you also need a
button *ON THE PAGE WE WANT USERS TO USE* to have a prominent XML button?

    >> (I guess if I'm going to edit the file, then it needs to have all the
    >> errata applied, and to be in the latest format?  That is, it should be
    >> compatible with the tools I have today)

    > Actually, "latest format" maybe, but I might want to have the original
    > in front of me, apply the conversion tools myself, and then convince
    > myself (however I might do that) that they did not cause any
    > substantive changes.

I doubt I can do all of that well, and I'm pretty clueful in this area.

    > As far as the errata are concerned, util and unless community consensus
    > is obtained for every "verified" one, absolutely not.

We did that already when the errata were verified.
The community gets consulted.  Really.  I've seen it happen.
But, maybe you are right: the -00 should be without errata, and then we apply them.

    > proposed fixes are the ones the WG wanted.  I've lost track of the
    > number of times I've seen a WG tasked with revising a document conclude
    > that a "verified" fix was not quite right or that the reported error

Really, it's a shame that you've lost track, because I've yet to see that
happen in a few times through the process.

    > was actually an indicator of part of the document that needed more
    > work.  In any of those cases, starting with a version of the XML that
    > had the errata applied would lose valuable information and, since WGs
    > normally start with the published document (especially for standards
    > track ones), might be misleading.

Of course, the wg-00 IDDIFF against RFCXXXX would show exactly the errata
which had been applied.   This is a relatively easy thing for editors to
provide the WG.

    >> I suppose that there a few people who still have "XMLmind XML Editor
    >> Personal Edition 5.1.1" installed.. (me)... But I can't remember when
    >> I last found to the best tool for some job.  I guess perhaps when
    >> someone sent me an XML file that seemed totally messed up, and I
    >> wondered if it was in fact valid, and I used it to pretty-print the
    >> XML.

    > I'm old enough that you may consider some of my habits strange, but I
    > seem to get along perfectly well in an emacs clone that has an XML mode
    > and a handful of macros most of which have been unchanged in the last
    > decade.  And I do edit XML, rather than using markdown of some flavor.

Yes, I use xml-mode regularly to collaborate with people who use XML.
It's mostly a waste of my time.

I almost never would use the XML to start RFCXXXXbis.




--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide