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@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
