Subject: [TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT] Producing the presentation formats from the canonical XML

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 11:30:53 -0500

All -

I'm starting to build the first version of the SoW for tools that would 
make the first set of presentation formats from the canonical XML for an 
RFC.
The requirements will include that people can run the conversion on 
their own machine on v3 formatted internet drafts.

Should we write this in generic terms like "one or more applications 
that produce the following outputs"
or write it directly in terms of extending the capabilities of xml2rfc?

If we produce something written the first way, I fully expect extending 
the capabilities of xml2rfc to be a strong contending proposal. Do we 
anticipate any others?

RjS

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 18:40:27 +0200

> their own machine on v3 formatted internet drafts.

Just to make sure: this includes the parts that are deprecated as well, 
right?

> or write it directly in terms of extending the capabilities of xml2rfc?

As in the v2 python code, I assume?

> the capabilities of xml2rfc to be a strong contending proposal. Do we

I don't believe we should rule them out.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 11:56:12 -0500

On 6/25/14, 11:40 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> Just to make sure: this includes the parts that are deprecated as 
> well, right?
yes
> As in the v2 python code, I assume?
yes

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 16:07:21 -0500

Ok - since the only feedback I got was to stay generic, the first draft 
does that and is attached.
It is a very small start, but I hope to get enough conversation going 
before we get to Toronto that we
can knock of bigger things in the hallway if we need to.Please review 
and comment this week if
you can. Some specific questions about what the next layer of 
information here should be:

* Do you think the referenced documents supply enough information about the
    target formats that the folks we would ask to do development would 
know what
    to produce?

* What other high level user experience requirements do we incorporate 
here? For instance, do we
rely on the separate rfclint to tell people what's wrong with their 
document if it's not correct enough
to convert? Should this application invoke that directly (with an 
evolution of xml2rfc, that's what
would happen naturally).

RjS

On 6/25/14, 11:56 AM, Robert Sparks wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-development