![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Agree with Barry that we need to balance things wisely.
Thanks,
Spencer
From: "Barry Leiba" <leiba at watson.ibm.com>
Bob Braden wrote:...Suppose that we edit the document in XML (we are already doing this part of the time), do a final nroffing pass to get the format just right, and then give the author(s) the edited xml,We have to make a new nroff version and PUT THE SAME CHANGES INTO IT THAT WE DID THE FIRST TIME.
Now, this may not actually be too bad; most of the changes at the nroff stage are very cosmetic
Maybe we're attacking that part of it the wrong way. What is it that makes those "cosmetic" changes, to "get the format just right", so important? Do we really care whether there's an extra blank line, or the indentation is one character too much?
When I run xml2rfc and look at the results, the formatting looks "just right" to me, at least for any value of "just right" that I care about. Why does the IETF (or others) care for a greater value of "just right"?
Or am I missing something basic in the formatting changes you're looking at, at that stage?
Barry
-- Barry Leiba, Pervasive Computing Technology (leiba at watson.ibm.com) http://www.research.ibm.com/people/l/leiba http://www.research.ibm.com/spam
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.