Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different threads - IETF Document Format
2009-07-05 12:02:12
Having written a moderate number of drafts, using a number of tools, I
find that I strongly prefer using XML2RFC.
One large draft I was working on was originally written using WORD. I
found it extremely difficult to work with (although I have a current
version of Word available at all times.)
Instead, working with another author we converted the document to XML
for XML2RFC. And we did this in spite of knowing up front that the
large amount of XML in the I-D was going to make this harder.
The current procedures allow for XML2RFC, Word, NROFF, and manual text
(if you really want.) Yes, to use any one of those you have to figure
out some idiosyncrasies of the particular approach. So I am very
confused why you are asking us to kill a tool that was produced by
volunteers, works very well, and that many people use by choice.
I have seen some folks arguing that we should make XML2RFC normative and
mandatory. If they can figure out how to automatically and accurate
convert the other mechanisms people use, then that can be considered.
Otherwise, mandating would be inappropriate, as some folks do indeed
find it difficult.
Yours,
Joel M. Halpern
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
My apologies for the subject line. I'm very disappointed that the silent
majority of draft authors isn't speaking up. I can't imagine that the
vast majority of draft authors has absolutely no problems with XML2RFC.
So I'm assuming they've been ignoring the thread, hopefully the new
subject line will get some of them to chime in. If that doesn't happen
I'll shut up and try to figure out why I have so much trouble with
something that nobody else finds difficult.
...
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different threads - IETF Document Format, (continued)
- Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different threads - IETF Document Format, Stefan Santesson
- RE: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different threads - IETF Document Format, Yaakov Stein
- Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different threads - IETF Document Format, Patrik Fältström
- Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different threads - IETF, Martin Rex
- Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different threads - IETF, Julian Reschke
- Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different threads - IETF, Martin Rex
- Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different threads - IETF, Julian Reschke
- Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different threads - IETF Document Format, James M. Polk
- Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different threads - IETF Document Format, Colin Perkins
- Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different threads - IETF Document Format, Stewart Bryant
- Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different threads - IETF Document Format,
Joel M. Halpern <=
- Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different threads - IETF Document Format, James M. Polk
- Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different threads - IETF Document Format, Patrik Fältström
- RE: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different threads - IETF Document Format, Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different threads - IETF Document Format, Lou Berger
- RE: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different threads - IETF Document Format, Tony Hain
- Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different threads - IETF Document Format, John C Klensin
- Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different threads - IETF Document Format, Doug Ewell
- Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different threads - IETF Document Format, Marc Petit-Huguenin
- xml2rfc is OK ( was: Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different threads - IETF Document Format), Lars Eggert
- Re: xml2rfc is OK ( was: Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different threads - IETF Document Format), Julian Reschke
|
|
|