Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different threads - IETF Document Format
2009-07-05 13:05:15
Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch at muada dot com> 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.
I'm a programmer, so none of this probably matters, but I didn't have
any more trouble learning to use xml2rfc than I normally have with other
programs that are fairly powerful but poorly documented. Reading XML is
its own skill and not always easy, by any means, but that is true for
any other text markup language. Deciphering the error messages isn't
easy either, but not *extremely* hard.
I did try to install xml2rfc locally on my system and failed miserably,
partly because of all the additional junk I would have had to install,
but the online version always works like a champ for me.
The point about capitalizing Dutch names wrong is an important
localization issue, since people's names are important, but treating it
as a fatal flaw in the premise of "encode meaning, not presentation"
seems to weaken the overall argument. It's a bug.
What we need is the ability to write drafts with a standard issue word
processor. I'm sure that sentence conjured up nightmares of Word
documents with insane formatting being mailed around clueless
beaurocracies, but that's not what I mean. Word processors use styles
to tag headings, text, quotes, lists and so on: the exact same stuff
that you can do in XML but rather than having to think about it
(especially closing all tags correctly) it happens easily,
automatically and without getting in the way. (I can even change the
style for an entire paragraph with a single menu selection or function
key without having to find the beginnings and ends of that paragraph.)
I fear this will run into the ground instantly, if the anti-Microsoft
faction insists on a single "standard issue" word processor that is
unfamiliar to most users. The same problems with learning to use a new
tool will apply.
It sounds like what people really want is a more comprehensive system
that would allow I-D authors to use xml2rfc, roff, Word, LaTeX, or
basically any tool they like, not a great policy reversal that replaces
one mandatory tool with another. Given the level of effort involved and
user expectations, especially concerning support for the latest updates
to the IP boilerplate, this would be beyond the scope of volunteer
developers; it would require professional developers with a professional
development budget.
--
Doug Ewell * Thornton, Colorado, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14
http://www.ewellic.org
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages ˆ
_______________________________________________
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, 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
- Re: xml2rfc is OK ( was: Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different threads - IETF Document Format), Dave Cridland
- Re: xml2rfc is OK ( was: Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different threads - IETF Document Format), Eric Rosen
- Re: xml2rfc is OK ( was: Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different threads - IETF Document Format), Dave CROCKER
- Re: xml2rfc is OK ( was: Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different threads - IETF Document Format), Tim Bray
- RE: xml2rfc is OK ( was: Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different threads - IETF Document Format), Wes Beebee (wbeebee)
- Re: xml2rfc is OK ( was: Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different threads - IETF Document Format), Julian Reschke
- Re: xml2rfc is OK ( was: Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different threads - IETF Document Format), Julian Reschke
|
|
|