Re: Lets be careful with those XML submissions to the RFC Editor

[Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de>]

Ned Freed wrote:
> > Whatever people feed into xml2rfc can be made stand-alone by running it
> > once through an XML parser and reserializing; or be applying an identity
> > XSLT transformation.
>
> Sure, but my point is people probably don't want to do this all the time.

I've got a Makefile for that. Should I share it?

> > >> But anyway, if you think it doesn't make sense to generate
> > >> self-contained XML for each I-D, why submit the non-self-contained XML
> > >> source at all?
> > >
> > > Obviously you don't submit XML source up until that point.
>
> > I thought people did and that was a problem. Did I misunderstand 
> > something?
>
> Yes, you're taking this entire line of commentary completely out of 
> context.
> This was all in response to Eliot's suggestion that XML versions of the
> document should be required at the time of WGLC. John K responded to that
> advising caution for various reasons and I chimed in with the additional 
> reason
> that this will force people to generate standalone intermediary versions
> for submission.

I'm aware of what started the discussion.

However, when I use the submission tool today, I may not even know 
whether a particular version I submit will be a WGLC version. So I think 
whatever is the right answer for WGLC or LC is also the right answer for 
any ID version.

BR, Julian

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf