ned(_dot_)freed(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com wrote:
I wonder how many of those have actually written a draft using both?
Let's see. I've done lots of drafts with both, using (in the nroff case)
several different macro packages. I have also produced several very large
non-RFC documents (in the thousand page range) using XML, nroff, and a variety
of other tools.
XML is the hands-down winner IMO.
I agree. I have written a fair number of drafts (some of them lengthy)
using word, nroff, latex, and XML. There's really no contest, XML is
the way to go.
Of course, I can imagine some toolset improvements but these
improvements are minor compared to some of the major (imho)
issues that the other alternatives have. And I can also imagine some
special purpose support (mibs, state tables, you name it) that people
may need. Personally, when I have that kind of issues I usually end up
writing a script that does some pre- or postprocessing to achieve what
is needed. Interestingly, I run into this on a regular basis when using
nroff, latex, and word. But I have needed only minor things in the last
couple of years when I have been using XML.
P.S. Anyone who uses an XML editor that requires mouse use which gets in the
way of simply entering text is using a crap tool. Plenty of alternatives exist
that work properly.
Just use emacs, that's what I do :-)
--Jari
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf