Re: [xml2rfc] RE: HTML2xml?

[Julian Reschke [mailto:[e-mail]]]

Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> Thats actually my point, the xml to HTML transformation probably does lose information, but that does not have to be the case. In fact RDFa was designed expressly to avoid information loss.
> 
> I have to get my drafts out today but I might get a chance to put a few hours in on this before Vancouver.

Well,

I'm always happy to give rfc2629.xslt new capabilities. What I'm not so
sure about is...: what's the chance that the XML source is lost, but the
HTML version is available?

BR, Julian


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://drakken.dbc.mtview.ca.us/pipermail/xml2rfc/attachments/20071102/d7c19435/attachment.htm
>From swb at employees.org  Fri Nov  2 11:04:47 2007
From: swb at employees.org (Scott Brim)
Date: Fri Nov  2 07:05:18 2007
Subject: [xml2rfc] dupes in bibxml3
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Excerpts from Miguel Garcia on Fri, Nov 02, 2007 10:50:05AM +0200:
> Hi:
>
> I was revising the index file of the I-D bibliography,
> http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/index.xml
>
> and I noticed that the file lists several versions of the same 
> Internet-Draft. For example, take draft-ietf-simple-xcap-diff and there are 
> versions 03, 04, 05, and 06.
>
> I was wondering if this is done on purpose or is it an oversight? I was 
> expecting that the index file contains only the most recent version of a 
> given draft.

I'm (still) in favor of keeping all of them.  That allows you to refer
to a specific version.  If you want to refer to the latest version,
whatever it is, you can leave off the version number.
>From mrose at dbc.mtview.ca.us  Fri Nov  2 10:57:10 2007
From: mrose at dbc.mtview.ca.us (Marshall Rose)
Date: Fri Nov  2 07:57:31 2007
Subject: [xml2rfc] dupes in bibxml3
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

>> I was wondering if this is done on purpose or is it an oversight?  
>> I was
>> expecting that the index file contains only the most recent  
>> version of a
>> given draft.
>
> I'm (still) in favor of keeping all of them.  That allows you to refer
> to a specific version.  If you want to refer to the latest version,
> whatever it is, you can leave off the version number.

miguel - it is that way on purpose, precisely for the reason that  
scott gives.

/mtr