On Tue Jun 20 19:50:36 2006, John C Klensin wrote:
As a more general observation, the whole XML2RFC family of tools
seem to have been designed and optimized for producing RFCs. To
the extent to which I have complaints personally (and I have few
-- I'm generally quite happy with it) it is because, while the
RFC Editor produces RFCs, most of us spend most of our time
producing and revising I-Ds. It is much better now than it was
when the project got started, but, IMO, the places where it
comes up short are in tools for working collaboratively, and
developing and tracking changes, on a document that is a work in
progress rather that one at the last pre-publication stages.
I use a version control system (specifically subversion) and tools
such as meld - http://meld.sf.net/ - for handling that case. What
changes is meld's job using a diff between revisions, why is from the
log entry.
Between them, I find them a sufficiently close fit that I'm not
looking for anything better.
I specifically don't think that trying to emulate version control
features in a document format is worth spending effort on.
Of course, if I could convince everyone I co-edit/co-author with to
use the version control system, I'd be even happier, but it works
okay even if I proxy their changes in.
Dave.
--
Dave Cridland - mailto:dave(_at_)cridland(_dot_)net -
xmpp:dwd(_at_)jabber(_dot_)org
- acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
- http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf