Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 17-jun-2006, at 0:18, Joe Touch wrote:
It's worth distinguishing the search for alternate normative output
formats from the search for a standard input format.
I think the mistake is to make the output format normative. If we make
the input format normative and publish that we're out of the woods:
obviously the input format is editable, and if it's sufficiently (but
not overly) well-defined output formats can be generated as desired.
Forcing the input format means one of two things:
- edit source code (argh - back to the stone age)
- force a limited set of editing software
I find neither useful nor productive.
I'm very partial to xml2rfc,
I'm sorry to be so negative, but I hate it. The stupid thing can't even
handle my name properly so I have to live with what it does or edit the
I gave up on it when cut/paste of blocks was more likely to render the
result uncompilable and impossible to repair.
XML2RFC once made me miss a draft deadline by choking on some XML I
wrote without saying why or where, leaving me with an impossible
debugging task. Formatting drafts in vi may take longer on average than
working with xml2rfc but it's more deterministic.
I found the new Word template let me focus on what it was I was writing,
and freed me from the arcane details of how it was encoded or processed.
That, IMO, is the purpose of the input format. Anything that's less
freeing is a step backwards.
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Ietf mailing list