Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different threads - IETF Document Format

["Joel M. Halpern" <jmh at joelhalpern.com>]

Having written a moderate number of drafts, using a number of tools, I 
find that I strongly prefer using XML2RFC.
One large draft I was working on was originally written using WORD.  I 
found it extremely difficult to work with (although I have a current 
version of Word available at all times.)
Instead, working with another author we converted the document to XML 
for XML2RFC.  And we did this in spite of knowing up front that the 
large amount of XML in the I-D was going to make this harder.

The current procedures allow for XML2RFC, Word, NROFF, and manual text 
(if you really want.)  Yes, to use any one of those you have to figure 
out some idiosyncrasies of the particular approach.  So I am very 
confused why you are asking us to kill a tool that was produced by 
volunteers, works very well, and that many people use by choice.

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.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

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. If that doesn't happen 
> I'll shut up and try to figure out why I have so much trouble with 
> something that nobody else finds difficult.
...