Iljitsch van Beijnum writes...
I'm very disappointed that the silent majority of draft authors
isn't speaking up. I can't imagine that the vast majority of
draft authors has absolutely no problems with XML2RFC.
My personal experience with XML2RFC, as an I-D and RFC author has been
largely positive. There does seem to be a bug in the latest pre-release
version around the use of ">" and "<" characters in ASCII art figures (as
arrow heads). Other than that, I find it easy to use.
It's true that the documentation is merely adequate, especially in the area
of document meta-data. I find it to be generally consistent with other open
The problem with XML2RFC formatted drafts and RFCs is that you
can't display them reasonably without using XML2RFC...
All you're saying is that XLM2RFC isn't WYSIWYG. True enough. Neither is
...and although XML2RFC can run on many systems in theory, in
practice it's very difficult to install and run successfully because
it's written in TCL and many XML2RFC files depend on the local
availability of references.
I rely on the on-line, web-based conversion service. I'll admit that I've
never gotten a local install of XML2RFC to work.
What we need is the ability to write drafts with a standard
issue word processor.
Why? I suppose if there were indeed a *standard* word processor, this might
be feasible, but I think by "standard issue" you mean "commercially
Ietf mailing list