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

[Hadriel Kaplan <HKaplan at acmepacket.com>]

> 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