On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 10:18:14 +0300, Lars Eggert
<lars(_dot_)eggert(_at_)nokia(_dot_)com> said:
LE> I'm fully open to trying something new once someone creates a
LE> different ("better") tool, but until then, xml2rfc is OK.
I'd even argue that the xml2rfc language is pretty good and fairly
flexible. I've run into a number of things I'd like to force it to do
that are mildly difficult, but in the end I've been happy with the
language.
It's the tool that needs a rewrite, IMHO. Don't get me wrong, it's
taken us a long way and we wouldn't be as far forward in interoperable ID
authorship if it weren't for the existing tool. However, like all good
prototypes eventually you need to take what you've learned and rewrite
it to fix the problems. I've been tempted to take on the task myself,
but don't have the allocated time to make it happen. (and it certainly
wouldn't be in TCL, as that's about my least preferred language of the
large number of languages I've written code in; no offense to TCL lovers).
--
Wes Hardaker
Cobham Analytic Solutions
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf