W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > spec-prod@w3.org > April to June 2000

Re: Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML

From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 15:56:59 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: "Marshall Rose" <mrose+mtr.netnews@dbc.mtview.ca.us>
Cc: "Eve L. Maler" <Eve.Maler@east.sun.com>, <spec-prod@w3.org>, "Marshall Rose" <mrose@dbc.mtview.ca.us>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
At 12:31 PM 6/13/00 -0700, Marshall Rose wrote:
 >first, you really ought to be talking to the rfc-editor@isi.edu, since
 >they're the ones who manage the rfc editorial process.

Ok, done.

 >in particular, you don't get to do pdf, or html, and postscript when
 >publishing an rfc. (well, they'll allow postscript for figures, but you'll
 >get so much feedback that you'll prefer to chew off your right arm rather
 >than actually publish anything in postscript...) this means that the
 >translater is going to have to be very, very smart, or you'll need to allow
 >dual markup for the same content. messy.

I'm not following. RFC2222 [1] requires ASCII. [2] specifies an XML source
format that could generate ASCII. RFC2629 specifies an XML source format
that generates ASCII and HTML. So we don't have to go from source (xml) ->
output (pdf) -> source (xml) -> ascii ?

[1] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2222.txt
[2] http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/06/xmlspec-report-v21.htm
[3] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2629.txt

 >from it. however, ascii art is the lowest common denominator. the entire
 >database is available in biblio format for including as references (which
 >a major selling point).

ASCII art is tricky. However, this bit only hassles those that need to
present in both the IETF and W3C. One could have a graphic element type, and
an alternative type, which might even be included as the Web Accessibility
Initiative encourages this sort of thing.

However, one day there might be neat SVG to ASCII art formats, AND you never
know, IETF might permit HTML/XML one day. <grin>

 >it's not really clear to me that a harmonization effort would work, given
 >the limitations in rfc 2222. however, i could certainly imagine someone
 >writing some XSLT that would translate from the 2629 format to whatever the
 >new format becomes, presumably because the new format would be a functional
Do you have a public list set up for discussion of and maintaining 2629? If
not, would you mind having those discussion in this forum? Dan Connolly,
would this be acceptable to you as the guy that started this list?

Joseph Reagle Jr.   
W3C Policy Analyst                mailto:reagle@w3.org
IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair   http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/
Received on Tuesday, 13 June 2000 15:57:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:55:07 UTC