Martin Rex <mrex at sap dot com> wrote:
If anything deserves the description "60's style document editing"
then it is the current xml2rfc processing, which requires a whole
bunch of extra software, lots of manual processing steps, reading of
lots of documentation and plenty of time and desire for humiliation in
order to test all those features through the manual self-torture
process.
I'm probably not a good data point, since I've only contributed to two
RFCs, and as a software developer I don't have much problem with using
multiple tools to get the job done (or with writing XML). But I have to
take issue with the "humiliation and torture" scenario described by
Martin.
I have never attempted to install xml2rfc on my local machine; I have
only used the online version at http://xml.resource.org/, and while I
would not lie and say the experience was completely trouble-free or that
the documentation was always perfect, on no account was it torture,
certainly not on the level that would discourage me from writing another
I-D. (Endless WG lily-gilding and tolerance of career trolls might,
though.)
In particular, with my heavily text-based drafts, in most cases I found
xml2rfc perfectly adequate to handle formatting. If you really care
about the exact formatting, you're going to have to go back and forth
between the editor output and your browser anyway, since browsers can
differ in their output.
One phenomenon that always emerges from this joint character-set/RFC
format discussion, every time it comes up, is that someone feels there
should be one and only one process and tool set for writing I-Ds, and
someone else feels the need to wave the "Don't Tread on Me" flag in
protest.
--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org
RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ http://is.gd/2kf0s
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf