On Wed, 2005/04/06 (MDT), <blilly(_at_)erols(_dot_)com> wrote:
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.
Same for editing XML sources, of course. One does not have to use
fancy XML-aware editors to edit XML, especially draft sources that
do not use much markup. FWIW, I do not use such an editor when
writing my drafts.
Can we stop this debate? It is clear to me that there are people who love
nroff and people who prefer XML. There is no point in discussing the
advantages of one imperfect format over the other imperfect format,
especially in such a biased way.
What we should debate instead is whether ID Submission tool requirements
should be modified to include nroff sources submission. So far, I heard of
a single argument why that change should be done: "because the RFC Editor
is using submitted nroff sources". Others have said it is not true. We can
ask the Editor to tell us the truth. Meanwhile, are there any more
arguments for nroff sources to be processed by the ID Submission tool?
Thank you,
Alex.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf