Re: [Tools-discuss] [rfc-i] Recommendation 9 from Results and analysis of the survey of I-D authors on formats and tools

["Andrew G. Malis" <[e-mail]>]

Leonard,

Can you use CommonMark to easily generate idnits-compatible drafts,
including ToC, references, boilerplate, and the rest? If so, is that
documented anywhere?

Unless and until that's in place, Kramdown is in place and works great. And
has awesome support!

Cheers,
Andy


On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 4:02 PM Leonard Rosenthol <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Supporting Markdown as an input option is a good idea - but why would you
> support a non-standard version of it?   CommonMark (
> https://commonmark.org/) is the relevant "specification" for markdown.
> Kramdown, on the other hand, is a specific tool that promotes its own
> flavor...
>
> Leonard
>
> On 2/4/21, 10:44 AM, "rfc-interest on behalf of Carsten Bormann" <
> [e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>     >
>     > 1. "Official support" for the Kramdown toolset rather than just
> appearing on the experimental tools page.
>     >
>     > 2. For idnits to support Kramdown source, so you don't have to do a
> conversion in order to perform idnits checking. I know that I could script
> this, and perhaps will when I start my next draft ... :-), but native
> support would be better.
>     >
>     > 3. Being able to use Kramdown as a draft submission format, rather
> than converting to XML and/or plaintext for submission.
>     >
>     > I'd be happy with 1, but even happier with 2 and/or 3 as well.
>
>     I’m a bit ambiguous about “official support”.
>     This is a bit like the transition from an individual draft to a
> working group draft…
>
>     Today, at 10:24 CET, Martin Thomson filed an issue, and he provided a
> fix at 10:27.
>     At 11:04, version 1.3.26 with that fix was pushed to rubygems.org so
> people can `gem update` to that.
>     I’d like to keep the kramdown-rfc process lightweight enough so we can
> have these turnaround times.
>
>     But sure, making the tool available on the tools/datatracker web
> presences and via the submission tool would be helpful.
>
>     I’m not so sure about (2).  This would require idnits to do some
> second-guessing of what kramdown—rfc does, and would make it harder to
> evolve kramdown-rfc.  Why not run the authoring tool and then idnits?
> Right now, there isn’t even a way to run idnits on the XML, maybe we could
> address that first.
>     Maybe I should put a simple CLI option for running idnits into the
> `kdrfc` tool...
>     Now
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fcabo%2Fkramdown-rfc2629%2Fissues%2F96&amp;data=04%7C01%7Clrosenth%40adobe.com%7C4293cd49aa87480921fb08d8c923b894%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637480502571422936%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=ZHizYml%2FsK%2FQIkc%2B0usb77P0pjnwrkBMqVKGXU%2BwweU%3D&amp;reserved=0
>
>     Grüße, Carsten
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     rfc-interest mailing list
>     [e-mail]
>
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Frfc-interest&amp;data=04%7C01%7Clrosenth%40adobe.com%7C4293cd49aa87480921fb08d8c923b894%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637480502571422936%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=mYAWpv%2BttqaFFCSACEwdpCC9lSDhxPN9gDm8HXYK9bg%3D&amp;reserved=0
>
>