On Tue Jun 20 19:50:36 2006, John C Klensin wrote:
As a more general observation, the whole XML2RFC family of tools seem to have been designed and optimized for producing RFCs. To the extent to which I have complaints personally (and I have few -- I'm generally quite happy with it) it is because, while the RFC Editor produces RFCs, most of us spend most of our time producing and revising I-Ds. It is much better now than it was when the project got started, but, IMO, the places where it comes up short are in tools for working collaboratively, and developing and tracking changes, on a document that is a work in progress rather that one at the last pre-publication stages.
I use a version control system (specifically subversion) and tools such as meld - http://meld.sf.net/ - for handling that case. What changes is meld's job using a diff between revisions, why is from the log entry.
Between them, I find them a sufficiently close fit that I'm not looking for anything better.
I specifically don't think that trying to emulate version control features in a document format is worth spending effort on.
Of course, if I could convince everyone I co-edit/co-author with to use the version control system, I'd be even happier, but it works okay even if I proxy their changes in.
Dave. -- Dave Cridland - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/ - http://dave.cridland.net/ Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
