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

From: Stewart Bryant <stbryant at cisco.com>
To: Colin Perkins <csp at csperkins.org>
Cc: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch at muada.com>, IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf at ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 11:53:35 +0100
In-reply-to: <78E013A7-EF25-484A-BF1B-4E299363D455 at csperkins.org>
References: <20090704112742.75686.qmail at simone.iecc.com> <F9907ADF-2608-4DAE-B48B-80DD45E78AEF at muada.com> <78E013A7-EF25-484A-BF1B-4E299363D455 at csperkins.org>

Colin Perkins wrote:

I have no significant problems using xml2rfc, and find it easier towrite Internet-Drafts using xml2rfc than I did using nroff, LaTeX, orMicrosoft Word.

+1

... and I am quite happy to use the online compiler.

Stewart

References:
- Re: Two different threads - IETF Document Format
  - From: John Levine
- XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different threads - IETF Document Format
  - From: Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different threads - IETF Document Format
  - From: Colin Perkins

Prev by Date: Re: RFC archival format, was: Re: More liberal draft formatting standards required
Next by Date: Re: More liberal draft formatting standards required
Previous by thread: Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different threads - IETF Document Format
Next by thread: Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different threads - IETF Document Format
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.

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

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.