- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 15:39:36 +0200
- To: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
- CC: spec-prod@w3.org
Norman Walsh schrieb: > / Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org> was heard to say: > | - What's the general wisdom in terms of converting an existing TR > | from HTML to xmlspec -- to what extent is that even deemed > | feasible with tools (i.e., how much information loss is there in > | the conversion from xmlspec to html), are there tools that go part > | of the way, or would some poor editor be in for a rather > | terrifying manual conversion job? > | > | (The obvious alternative would be to edit the HTML directly.) > > A little XSLT would no doubt take you a good deal of the way, though > I'm not aware of any existing XSLT for that purpose. > > | - Assuming we'd go for xmlspec, is there any existing tooling that > | would lend itself to easily producing an RFC out of this, e.g. by > | transforming xmlspec into the format defined in the latest > | draft-mrose-writing-rfcs [2], and then using the tools that are > | common in the IETF? > > The XML for RFCs is ... idiosyncratic. I think it'd be a challenge > to go from anything even moderately complicated to that format > cleanly. Well, most of the time it would need to strip things out. Remember it's been designed to produce the ASCII test documents the RFC Editor likes to publish. > I might, in your shoes, be tempted to author in the RFC markup and > then convert that into W3C HTML. Not that that's going to be easy > either, given the limitations of the RFC vocabulary. > > | 1. http://www.w3.org/2007/xmlsec/ > | 2. http://xml.resource.org/authoring/draft-mrose-writing-rfcs.html I'm personally quite happy with the xml2rfc grammar, although of course a few extensions make things nicer (see <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2629xslt/rfc2629xslt.html#extensions>). I do have a proof-of-concept XSLT for xml2rfc->xmlspec, let me know if you're interested... Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 16 April 2007 13:40:05 UTC