Re: [Tools-discuss] Why do we even have text formats any more?

Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> Wed, 28 July 2021 16:15 UTC

Return-Path: <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E05263A165C for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 09:15:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.079
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.079 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nostrum.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 dWIZlHRpw5oS for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 09:15:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5FE923A1659 for <tools-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 09:15:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from unformal.localdomain ([47.186.34.206]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPSA id 16SGFhRe034718 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for <tools-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 11:15:43 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1627488944; bh=H3S2oq7leRFfHz0dlwPaZ6lQPeQwzTOq8rvc6ODXrR0=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=gOV34Fqy2/bBQ8+neSxjoMw34RkeeJbvJUQMwbvZnhmIAlrA/Oi2prauLBGSZjS/S TtpIg83AIFE8rslcjS8ywoNpm5uNIoX/07dQDQb7ZdLfQX8AnAMoMtFfNkc/5+trhC 6uAkADzlJrqvIlrOiF2vvHvkxHbMBcupGLgHV+A0=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host [47.186.34.206] claimed to be unformal.localdomain
To: tools-discuss@ietf.org
References: <4d70a1ac-a275-420a-83f6-99dfd5b5385c@www.fastmail.com> <19431.1627486962@localhost>
From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <e2b3210c-9163-3dad-d4f1-0dfdf0aee9ec@nostrum.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2021 11:15:38 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <19431.1627486962@localhost>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------F97270E3DE1D5DA798DED241"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-discuss/JSj2KoE4vE2gnSizIeIoFadi2QE>
Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Why do we even have text formats any more?
X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion <tools-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tools-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:tools-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2021 16:15:52 -0000

On 7/28/21 10:42 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
> Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net> wrote:
>      > I realize that this might be a little inflammatory as far as subjects
>      > go, but bear with me.
>
>      > There are probably a few narrow cases where rendering plain text is
>      > better than HTML.
>
> The time when it's nice to have actual .txt files is when writing code, and
> one needs to search for, and then copy and pasting bits of requirement into the code.
> But, if I'm really working on such a document, I can run xml2rfc -o text myself.
>
>      > Here's an alternative: style the HTML so that it looks like the text.  I tried this and it worked shockingly well.
>
>      > Repo: https://github.com/martinthomson/rfc-txt-html
>      > Demo: https://martinthomson.github.io/rfc-txt-html/diff.html
>
>      > This isn't perfect, but it seems pretty good to me.
>
> I agree: it looks great.
> I also agree that we should obsolete the htmlizer.

I don't think we can - what do you want to show for older RFCs? I think 
people expect the html-ized version, and we can't render v3 html for those.

Further - the discussion so far is ignoring (or presuming a change in) 
the large set of submissions we get now (as plain text) that do not have 
rfcxml anywhere in their production process.

>
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
>             Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> Tools-discuss mailing list - Tools-discuss@ietf.org
> This list is for discussion, not for action requests or bug reports.
> * Report datatracker and mailarchive bugs to: datatracker-project@ietf.org
> * Report tools.ietf.org bugs to: webmaster@tools.ietf.org
> * Report all other bugs or issues to: ietf-action@ietf.org
> List info (including how to Unsubscribe): https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss