I don't think that converting to xml is the same class of work.
There's a great deal of semantic information that should be encoded in
the XML that isn't in the submitted text and doesn't have to be in the
nroff.
Strictly speaking, you are certainly right.
But I lived with nroff for quite a few years and I have had to do quite a few
txt-2-xml2rfc conversions recently. The difference in semantic encoding, that
you cite, is offset by how easily nroff formatting errors can be made and not
readily detected.
Mostly, this sort of conversion work has a small, relatively standardized
"vocabulary" of text to add or change and one gets into a rhythm. From that
perspective, I suspect the work is about the same. The real difference is that
debugging the xml2rfc conversion is probably MUCH easier.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
<http://bbiw.net>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf