RE: [xml2rfc] Generating HTML and PDF with Unicode (and diagrams?)

I'm trying to solve a local problem of making the IRI internet drafts more useful, through a change to (or a pre-processor for) xml2rfc. I do not wish to open the "What formats are allowed for RFCs" can of worms, please stay completely shut. The current policy, however, allows for PDF editions of RFCs. My only question is how to best accomplish, using xml2rfc, this limited design goal.

So no, this is *not* a discussion for rfc-interest, because I do not at all wish to change the current policy, which I think allows everything I'd like to accomplish.

I'm *only* talking about how best to change xml2rfc to be useful in producing submissions which are consistent with existing policy.

Larry
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Hoffman [mailto:paul.hoffman@vpnc.org] 
Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2012 12:44 PM
To: Larry Masinter
Cc: xml2rfc list; public-i18n-core@w3.org
Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Generating HTML and PDF with Unicode (and diagrams?)

On Mar 10, 2012, at 12:34 PM, Larry Masinter wrote:

> Since Internet Drafts and RFCs already allow supplying and delivering PDF, we wouldn't have to change IETF policy to get these examples actually legible to those who need to read and interpret them.


This is a discussion for rfc-interest, not for xml2rfc. If the RFC Editor allows putting non-ASCII characters in RFCs, it is safe to assume that the xml2rfc tool will be updated to allow that. If the RFC Editor does not allow that, it makes little sense to allow it in Internet Drafts that are intended to become RFCs.

Just because you are punching from the side instead of going through the top, that doesn't change the fact that you are re-opening the can of worms. (I say this as someone who has advocated for what you want in the past, doing so with Internet Drafts, not just questions on mailing lists.)

--Paul Hoffman

Received on Saturday, 10 March 2012 22:01:24 UTC