Subject: [rfc-i] v3 transition and datatracker

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 10:48:30 -0400

One of the authors in CELLAR who is using XML v3 says:

>  I tried with FFV1 version 4 but don’t see a difference. At
>  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cellar-ffv1-v4/
>  <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cellar-ffv1-v4/> in the XML
>  link you can see the svg data in the XML but the HTML and PDF links show
>  the ASCII art rather than the SVG and the <sourceblock> sections have
>  their line returns stripped. So I don’t see any difference here since I
>  last posted FFV1 version 0,1,3 on September 6th.

It seems that we ought to be generating the HTML and PDF from the v3 using
XML2RFC directly rather than going XML->TXT->HTML{->PDF}.

This is no doubt because the DT still depends upon the tools.ietf page for
HTML version.   As such, nobody can see the nicer versions of output.

What is the plan?
(Is this work contracted somewhere?)

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 17:28:46 +0200

Hi Michael,

> XML2RFC directly rather than going XML->TXT->HTML{->PDF}.

Yes, agreed.

> (Is this work contracted somewhere?)

Not explicitly, but I'll add v3 conversion and a v3 html link in the next
datatracker release.

Best regards,

	Henrik

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 12:29:04 -0400

> XML2RFC directly rather than going XML->TXT->HTML{->PDF}.

As I noted previously, having the HTML output match the plaintext output 
line for line is a valuable feature. I would hate to see this regress.

I realize that this also loses some of the attractiveness of the HTML. 
Maybe there is a need for two different HTML versions.

	Thanks,
	Paul

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 18:36:23 +0200

Hi Paul,

> Maybe there is a need for two different HTML versions.

That is the path I've taken when I worked on the code earlier today.
I plan to add a new link to the v3 HTML version, and keep the htmlized
link, but re-label it 'htmlized'.

Would that work for you?

Best regards,

	Henrik

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 12:50:42 -0400

> link, but re-label it 'htmlized'.

Yes, that would be great!

	Thanks,
	Paul