I *strongly* support "please don't ever *mandate* it [XML2RFC]".
Although, I'm perfectly happy using the obscure syntax of nroff (when
combined with a set of macros I received from George Swallow about 10-12
years ago). I produced a couple of drafts using xml and decided that
nroff was much easier and let me focus on the the document rather than
the document production...
Lou
On 7/5/2009 7:25 PM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
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.
+1
For those who are used to MS-Word, XMLMind is frustrating and truly requires
an XML mind. Even simple things like cut/paste are done in a very different
(and frankly inconsistent) way, as are references and such. In theory a
WYSIWYG word processor shouldn't require an author to know the internal
representation and underlying language of the document format.
I know a large number if not outright majority of IETF authors do not use
MS-Word, so XML2RFC is a fine *option* - but please don't ever *mandate* it
and force the rest of us have to write documents in a syntax only a tiny
fraction of the planet uses and understands.
-hadriel
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf