On 5 Jul 2009, at 14:24, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> My apologies for the subject line. 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. So I'm assuming they've been ignoring the thread,
> hopefully the new subject line will get some of them to chime in. If
> that doesn't happen I'll shut up and try to figure out why I have so
> much trouble with something that nobody else finds difficult.
I have no significant problems using xml2rfc, and find it easier to
write Internet-Drafts using xml2rfc than I did using nroff, LaTeX, or
My experience has been the same. I will also add that I find the ability to
apply XML tools, including but not limited to syntax checking editors, very
I particularly like the fact that xml2rfc lets me focus on the content of my
drafts and spend very little time on presentation issues. I don't even want to
think about how much time I've wasted piddling around with formattting nits
when using nroff, and don't get me started on LaTeX.
Oh, and as for installing the software, I'm not a TCL fan, but even so I've
done that on everything from Mac OS 9 to Solaris to OpenVMS. I sure can't say
the same for groff.
My only serious complaint about xml2rc has been the current need to use a
pre-release version and the whole boilerplate thing, but I view that as a
failing (or is that "flailing"?) of our process and not an xml2rfc issuue per
I also appreciate the added consistency in Internet-Draft formatting
that has resulted since xml2rfc has been widely adopted. This makes it
a lot easier to print drafts, since they have consistent page sizes
and form-feed characters.
Agreed that the consistency is very welcome, but I honestly can't recall the
last time I printed out a draft or RFC. It's been several years at least.
Ietf mailing list