Joe Touch wrote:
Elwyn Davies wrote:
I used to use the Word template but the freedom from hassle of
generating the final documents
I'm not sure what freedom this means; XML still needs to run through a
script, just as Word does.
you can't do it from inside Word and in my experience the Word process
broke about 80% of the time (mostly due to the generic text printer
being horribly buggy) but maybe it is better now since I gave up with
Word some time ago. [Microsoft were never interested in fixing these
bugs - reducing some lines to heights of a fraction of a point and
rendering one character per line in an apparently random fashion - and
they persisted across multiple releases of Word.]
the ease of generating references
Commercial software allows BIBTEX references to be imported into
citation databases, so this is moot as well.
I am sure I could buy some tools but how well integrated with Word would
this be and how much would it cost me?
makes
xxe/xml2rfc
and support of complex numbered lists (almost impossible to achieve in
Word)
I checked your three current I-Ds and five RFCs, and the most complex
numbering I saw was "G1, G2, ...", "P1, P2...", and paragraphs numbered
"G.1:, G.2:...". Word has been able to handle all of these since the
late 1980's. Was there a more complex example I missed, or one in a
pending document that hasn't been issued that you could give as an example?
In theory.. my experience was that multiple sets of numbered paragraphs
spread across sections was painful and error prone.
But ultimately it was just the level of repeated niggles and panics when
conversion fails close to the I-D deadline that I don't get with xml2rfc
and especially with xxe.
Don't let me stop you using Word but I know which set of tools I prefer.
Elwyn
Joe
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf