xml2rfc is OK ( was: Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different thread

Hi,

On 2009-7-5, at 16:24, 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.
since you asked: I have absolutely no problems with xml2rfc.

I used to edit in nroff, which wasn't compatible with my brain, and I  
used Joe's Word template, which works OK, but I prefer something ASCII- 
based for collaborative editing (for svn, diff, etc.)
I'm fully open to trying something new once someone creates a  
different ("better") tool, but until then, xml2rfc is OK.
Lars

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

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