On Tue, 2005/04/05 (MDT), <ned(_dot_)freed(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com> wrote:
On Tue April 5 2005, Bruce Lilly wrote:
While I have no data to either confirm or refute that assertion, RFC
2223 section 3 and the draft successor to that document both explicitly
state that the RFC Editor uses nroff.
Yes, but speaking from personal experience, that doesn't mean they'll use
_your_ nroff sources. I stopped bothering to send in my nroff sources
when I found out that the RFC Editor wasn't using it
That was my (possibly incorrect) impression as well:
RFC Editor creates nroff from XML or plain text.
Thus, I did not consider nroff as "source" in this context
(note that I did not say RFC Editor is not using nroff).
Again, I could be wrong.
However, I would like to avoid focusing too much attention on current RFC
Editor practices, regardless of whether you consider them perfect or
arcane. I am sure that folks will write many tools to extract info from
XML drafts once XML drafts are available. I would be surprised if the same
would happen to nroff sources, especially long-term, especially in
competition with XML. There are many reasons, including general knowledge
of the subject and libraries availability.
Does anybody have any statistics showing the percentage of current
Internet-Drafts written using xml2rfc? I do not volunteer, but I suspect
there is something specific to xml2rfc plain text output that a simple
script can detect while grepping through the drafts archive. Can the same
be done for nroff? These stats would help us to understand at least the
current environment better...
Thank you,
Alex.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf