Subject: [Tools-discuss] New XML2RFC: minor issues

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 13:07:38 -0700

The old xml2rfc would generate a docName attribute based on the name
of the input (or output) file.  This was convenient because
upversioning a draft did not require manual tweaking of the docName
attribute.  The new one omits the docName if it is absent.  This
causes the I-D upload to reject the output file with the message:
 The first page of the document does not contain a legitimate filename
that start with draft-*
(I'll note that this message is rendered in red on a red background,
which is confusing.)

Sure, the old web service was bad about this - it used the name of the
temporary file rather than using the value from the
Content-Disposition header.  But at least it created a placeholder.

The old xml2rfc was OK with long lines in figures.  It would allow the
figure to steal space from the the margin on the left of the page.
With some parts of drafts needing all the space they can get, this was
a useful feature.

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 09:06:49 +0100

With the towering set of (probably also mostly minor) issues at

http://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc/trac/report/11

maybe moving v2 into production was a bit early?

(I know that it is hard to get bug reports when people aren't using a tool, but right now the bugs are more than an annoyance -- people actually have already misunderstood what I was writing because v2 mangled it.)

I'm painfully aware a formatter is hard to get right, but get it right we must.

Something like a roadmap pointing forward would be consoling at this point.

Grüße, Carsten