Subject: [Tools-discuss] IONs on the tool server (was: ISSUE: adopt RFC 4693 section 2.2 paragraph 5)

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 18:28:57 +0100

Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
 
> In cases where the xml file is available, text can be
> produced with xml2rfc.
[...]
> For a very early cut of assembling something like this, try
 
>    http://www1.tools.ietf.org/html/ion-procdocs

That's nice... :-)  I've immediately replaced my old link 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carpenter-procdoc-roadmap
by your version.  

> Should work for the above link now, and for all tool
> servers and ions shortly.

Great, thanks.  Copied to the tools list for info.

Frank

_______________________________________________
Tools-discuss mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 22:11:57 +0100

But... this seems all wrong.

There is *no* text version of that ION. It only exists in HTML.
ION authors get to choose txt or html. It happens that an ION
developed with XML2RFC is stored in SVN in xml and html formats,
but the valid version for public use is the one
in http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/ions/

I don't see the point in synthesising a txt version, and still
less of synthesising an html version for a text ION, which will
normally be a very simple document.

Consider me puzzled. Incidentally, the IONization folklore is
being gathered at
http://www1.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/IonIzation

     Brian

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 00:36:03 +0100

Hi Brian,

The following comments are my personal, subjective views, and
I have no particular need to enforce them on other people --
just take them as a personal comment on this.

> in http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/ions/

Umm. Ok.  But I'd think that it's the text that matters, not
the format?  Anyway, personally I find the style sheet used for
the html format of RFC document ugly and distracting, and I'd
rather read something formatted according to a template I feel
at home with.  I don't know how much weight that should carry,
but I don't think it should be ignored.

I have considered producing one or more alternative .css style
sheets for xml2rfc output, or alternative styling for the xslt
processor, but haven't had time...

The HTML version *does* have the advantage of embedded links,but
those links aren't always the most useful links, which was the

> normally be a very simple document.

Take ion-procdocs as an example.  The public version mentions a large
number of userful RFCs, and each one is linked to the reference
section, where it is linked to a plain-text version of the RFC with
no further links.  As mentioned by Frank, the html format you get
using the htmlification lets each mention of an RFC lead directly to
a hyperlinked version of that RFC, without going via the reference
section, and without ending up in a text/plain document with no
outgoing hyper-links.

The same result could be achieved by fixing the html result from
xml2rfc to point directly to RFCs at the point of reference, rather
than indirectly; and by pointing to RFCs with hyperlinks, rather
than to text/plain versions with no further links.  But doing *that*
fix is beyond what I can do in a couple of hours.  If the xml2rfc
maintainers are attentive and responsive, they will do something
about this which will remove any benefit of the re-htmlized versions
of IONs, but that isn't available for use today...

> http://www1.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/IonIzation

Thanks for the link.  I wasn't aware of this page.  I hope that
I've provided some explanation of my view above, reducing the
puzzlement; without of course meaning that we necessarily need to
have the same view on this.

Regards,

	Henrik

---

From: Marshall Rose <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 16:46:02 -0700

> If the xml2rfc

if people want changes to xml2rfc, then they will send a concise,  
thoughtful note to the xml2rfc list explaining what problem needs to  
be solved along with possible suggestions...

/mtr

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 07:01:52 +0100

Henrik,

I get it. I thought a bit more after sending my note but it was bedtime
before I understood Frank's "dead end" comment.

However I'd caution against going too far too fast on IONs. They are an
experiment, and the ability to use xml2rfc for them was an afterthought,
when I realised that several xml2rfc drafts were likely to become IONs
instead of RFCs.

So, if we decide to make IONs a permanent feature (a decision for the
new IESG about the end of 2007) we could have a real discussion about
the best way to integrate the various tools. Meanwhile obviously
I have no problem with experimentation.

Marshall,

I think the cosmetics of the HTML rendering could be debated for
ever. Personally I like the xml2rfc rendering more than the tools
Courier rendering, but I do like the concept that all RFCs cited by
an RFC are also HTMLized in the tools rendering.

     Brian

On 2007-03-19 00:46, Marshall Rose wrote:
> thoughtful note to the xml2rfc list explaining what problem needs to be 
> solved along with possible suggestions...
> 
> /mtr
> 
>

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 08:15:13 +0100

As you know, I don't see the fascination with IONs. But if we are  
going to mess with them, I really don't see a reason to mess with the  
format over cosmetic issues. If you have structural comments, that is  
something that can be specified and gotten correct, but a popularity  
context on what looks good to one eye on the screen vs someone else's  
eye is a lose-lose argument that has no endpoint. And I happen to  
like xml2rfc's html output.

On Mar 19, 2007, at 7:01 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

>> thoughtful note to the xml2rfc list explaining what problem needs  
>> to be solved along with possible suggestions...
>> /mtr

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 09:03:46 +0100

FWIW, if you Henrik can put the IONs on the tools site,
that would be great -- I generally expect the tools service
to provide a better service in some way than our official
things. I don't mind if you can convert existing ION formats
to tools site formats, as long as you can do it for all IONs
and you are not losing information. IONs come official
either in text or html, and some, but not all, of these
have xml source. By the way, my xml2rfc template for
IONs is here:

http://www.arkko.com/publications/iesg/ion-xml-template.html

If it would be great if the tools representation of IONs
worked well with this.

Jari

P.S. Personally, I kind of like the xml2rfc html output.

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 11:24:09 +0100

Hi Brian,

> before I understood Frank's "dead end" comment.

Ah. Ok.

> I have no problem with experimentation.

Sure, and Ok.

	Henrik

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 11:29:26 +0100

Hi Jari,

> to tools site formats, as long as you can do it for all IONs

Right,

> and you are not losing information.

Right.

> IONs come official

Ah.  With another person already approaching me about putting
some templates up on the tools server, I see a "Templates" area
coming up...

> If it would be great if the tools representation of IONs

Right.  I'll give it some attention.

	Henrik

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 14:27:24 +0100

>> http://www.arkko.com/publications/iesg/ion-xml-template.html

And the xml source is in SVN
https://www1.tools.ietf.org/svn/group/iesg/ions/drafts/ion-ion-xml-template.xml

    Brian
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 18:32:22 +0100

Henrik Levkowetz schrieb:
 > ...
> ...

See my proposed extension, as implemented in rfc2629.xslt 
(<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2629xslt/rfc2629xslt.html#ext-rfc2629.xref>).

It still makes the [FOO] a link to the references section, but allows to 
add the section number (which then becomes a *direct* link into the HTML 
version).

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 00:12:06 +0100

> P.S. Personally, I kind of like the xml2rfc html output.

Strong ACK.

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 00:22:10 +0100

> Strong ACK.

Argh, I read "rfcmarkup" where Jari clearly wrote "xml2rfc".

Withdrawing the "strong ACK", I like monospaced Courier and
the original layout with page numbers better than Helvetica.
Of course I know that this costs me meta data and non-ASCII.

Sorry for the confusion,

 Frank