Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different threads - IETF Document For

I also support this view, and the reason why I think this is a good  
idea is that the likelyhood we will see MORE (professional) tools  
helping with the XML2RFC production if we do.
So I think it will help "both" views expressed on this list.

   Patrik

On 5 jul 2009, at 21.55, James M. Polk wrote:

> +1
>
> At 11:01 AM 7/5/2009, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> > 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

PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf