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

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

> 
> 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://github.com/cabo/kramdown-rfc2629/issues/96

Grüße, Carsten