Re: [xml2rfc] RfcMarkup not authoritative, HTML is gone?

[Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>]

On 9/16/19 10:46 AM, Anders Rundgren wrote:
> On 2019-09-16 16:27, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
>> On 9/16/19 1:22 AM, Anders Rundgren wrote:
>>> On 2019-09-14 11:41, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> RfcMarkup has no official standing (and yes, I like it as well, and it
>>>> has served us well for a very long time). It apparently generates 
>>>> XHTML,
>>>> but the content is served as text/html on tools.ietf.org. It might be
>>>> good to change it to produce valid HTML5.
>>>
>>> This in interesting and but also rather confusing since this is the by
>>> far most used method for communicating RFCs by developers.
>>
>> Do you have any data to backup this claim?
> 
> No, OTOH, since I mostly work with JSON-based stuff, the documents are 
> fairly recent.

I don't recall every having seen a reference to an RfcMarkup.

> What I'm sure that I have newer seen in wild are references to PDF RFCs 

Nor have I.

The most common references I see are to either the "HTMLized" form, the 
plain text, or the datatracker page.

Personally I much prefer to work with the HTMLized form. It gives easy 
ability to jump around in the document, the extra info in the header 
including links to related tools, etc. and yet the text is almost 
identical to the plain text form which makes it easy to jump back and 
forth between a diff and the full document. It is also convenient to cut 
and paste bits of the document into email. I much prefer this format to 
the HTML format generated directly from xml.

When a new version of a document is published, I first pull up the 
HTMLized format. Then from there I follow the link to open a diff in 
another tab. That way I can skim the changes and easily refer back to 
the full document when I need more context.

I hope that the HTMLized format will continue to be available. It could 
however be directly generated from the XML rather than from the 
plaintext. Generating it from the plaintext sometimes results in defects 
regarding references.

	Thanks,
	Paul