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

Lars Eggert wrote:
> 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.
Indeed.

Also, we should keep in mind that xml2rfc can refer both to a specific 
XML vocabulary, and a set of tools.
The vocabulary is relatively straightforward, and has been extended by 
both MTR and others. At some point of time, we may want to work on a 
revision of it (that is, RFC 2629).
With respect to the tools: I usually do not worry about xml2rfc.tcl (the 
processor) until I need to submit something. Instead, I make sure that 
my source validates (against the DTD), and instead focus on content, and 
just review the HTML output, as produced by rfc2629.xslt. The latter 
works on any machine that has support for XSLT, such as any that can run 
IE6, Firefox 2, Opera 9, or Safari 3. And no, you don't need a browser 
to run the XSLT, just install xsltproc or Saxon.
Finally, regarding local installations of xml2rfc.tcl: at least on 
Windows, just install Cygwin, make sure TCL is included in the install, 
and it will work just fine.
BR, Julian


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