On Tue April 5 2005 19:29, ned(_dot_)freed(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com wrote:
Yes, but speaking from personal experience, that doesn't mean they'll use
_your_ nroff sources.
True. But the opportunity is there.
Bruce, with all due respect, the effort you have expended on developing this
seems to me to be headed in the wrong direction. IMO the place we are at with
xml2rfc and the RFC Editor's acceptance of the format is much better than
anything can ever get from any scheme that is based on nroff as the primary
format.
I've spent about the same amount of time and effort in developing troff
macros as on trying to use xml2rfc (the biggest difficulty being (not)
finding a suitably productive XML editor). Even if the macros are not
useful to anybody else, they're useful to me; I have 5 drafts currently
in various stages produced using them. All I have to show for roughly
the same effort in the XML direction is a somewhat better understanding
of some XML arcana and loss of respect for some products which heavily
hype XML output but which seem incapable of producing RFC-specific XML
without major effort (e.g. OpenOffice/StarOffice). In some cases, some
heavily-hyped document preparation tools seem incapable of producing
simple plain (formatted) text (such as is required for I-Ds)!
o automatic generation of plain text, PostScript, PDF, HTML (including
line diagrams, tables, data formats, etc.), preserving page layout,
from single source
All possible with the xml2rc format.
Tools for producing complex tables, data format diagrams, mathematical
equations, line drawings, chemical diagrams, graphs, and formatted ABNF
are readily available for use with troff/nroff. I no of none
specifically for use with xml2rfc (though I suppose with some effort
some of the troff-based tools could be adapted).
o (if a suitable macro package is used) no need to upload boilerplate;
provided that the (IETF copy of the) macro package is maintained,
up-to-date boilerplate can be generated automatically
Xml2rfc has been realigned each time the boilerplate requirements have
changed.
This has proved to be tremendously convenient.
Ditto for the macros (as of this morning, there's an update that
incorporates the latest versions of 1id-guidelines.txt,
ID-Checklist.html (formerly ID-nits), and the change in boilerplate
rules scheduled to go into effect a month from today.
o ability for authors w/o access to formatting tools to upload easily-
produced document source which can be used to produce a formatted
draft
IMO neither nroff source nor XML source qualify as "easily produced".
A text editor -- any text editor -- suffices for nroff source. That
includes vi, emacs, textpad (MS Windows), SiED (PalmOS), etc. In
theory, there exist commercial XML editors for PalmOS, but I suspect
thay they are less productive than the ones on other platforms.
But the
number of tools for producing and vetting XML is large and growing. (I
personally use something called "Exchanger XML Editor".) I don't think the
same
can be said for nroff.
The number of text editors is very large and probably growing.
The biggest problem with XML editors is that they are unproductive.
Editing XML in all of the ones I've seen goes something like:
1. hunt for mouse
2. move cursor to nondescript icon and click
3. try to figure out what it is
4. type a few characters of text
5. go to step 1
(or see http://www.ivritype.com/xml/) [no, I didn't write it and I
don't care about MS Windows programs]
Conversely, nroff source can be generated directly from a keyboard; no
need to embark on wild mouse chases.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf