Equating the XML communities and the xml2rfc communities is not correct.
Actually, it is.
xml2rfc uses some tailored dtd/xslt files. They semantics in them is
significant but what is far more important is the xml infrastructure that is
available, in terms of expertise and tools.
I now produce drafts using an off-the-shelf xml tool that take the standard-form
xml2rfc dtd and xslt files and produce excellent output. (To be entirely fair,
yes, there is some special software that produces the txt version.) The xml
tool and knowledge of xml are broadly applicable, and growing. Knowledge of
nroff is now sufficiently obscure as to be beyond mere characterization as
"marginalized". A word like "archaic" is more appropriate.
And by the way, please note that the use of nroff for rfcs also requires special
conventions.
What is important is not the files used to tailor the production service, but
the prevalence of expertise and tools for that service.
In reality, nroff expertise is isolated in a tiny community. In reality, xml
expertise has become global. That's not an assessment of hypothetical, future
adoption. It is an assessment of *existing* adoption.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
<http://bbiw.net>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf