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

[Lou Berger <lberger at labn.net>]

I *strongly* support "please don't ever *mandate* it [XML2RFC]".

Although, I'm perfectly happy using the obscure syntax of nroff (when
combined with a set of macros I received from George Swallow about 10-12
years ago).  I produced a couple of drafts using xml and decided that
nroff was much easier and let me focus on the the document rather than
the document production...

Lou

On 7/5/2009 7:25 PM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 
> 
>