On 2011-02-25 05:38, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 05:11:00PM +0100, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
The ratio of gripes against idnits to actual bug reports is getting to
be a bit annoying; and I'd like to suggest that people either submit
bug reports, or direct the complaints against the requirements of
1id-guidelines.txt rather than against the tool which checks the
requirements if the problem is that the requirements are too strict.
You're quite right that I'm using "idnits" as a portmanteau for the
whole "1id-guidelines checking at submission" bundle. My apologies
for being imprecise. I am indeed complaining about the latter and not
about the former.
For the record, I positively like the facts that the submission tool
carries out basic conformance checks and that 1id-guidelines is
1. I like this as an author, because it avoids me having to check things
as a separate step (until the draft is ready for AD review).
2. I like this as a reader and reviewer of drafts, because it leads
to a very useful degree of uniformity in the way drafts are
And while I'm at it, I like the fact that xml2rfc does a lot of
fiddly stuff for me that I always found a pain in the neck with
A Satisfied Customer
Ietf mailing list