on 2006-01-11 23:00 Ned Freed said the following:
*> From: "Brian Rosen" <br(_at_)brianrosen(_dot_)net>
*> To: "'Paul Hoffman'" <paul(_dot_)hoffman(_at_)vpnc(_dot_)org>,
<ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
*> Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 20:13:35 -0500
*> The RFC editor has some problems which have not, to my
knowledge,
*> been enumerated.
*>
Your knowledge is apparently incomplete. The RFC Editor has been
actively experimenting with using xml2rfc for publication, and we have
been passing our problems along to the tools team. As we get more
experience, new ones show up. There is not currently a version of
xml2rfc that meets our needs. Some of our editors do the major
editing in XML, but they find it most efficient and effective to
switch to nroff for the final cleanup of the (ASCII) document format.
Rather than sending such suggestions to the IETF tools team, why not bring
them
up on the xml2rfc list? Given that I don't see names like "Charles Levert" and
"Julian Reschke" and "Marshall Rose" on the current tools team list, I'm a
little concerned that certain things might be lost in process of getting them
from the tools team to the actual xml2rfc tool maintainers.
I fully agree. Comments should go to the xml2rfc list. And as a matter of
fact, the tools team has not received any feedback or comments from the
RFC-Editor regarding the xml2rfc tool. If we had, we would have forwarded it
to the xml2rfc list.
Henrik
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf