Patrik,
Problem with LaTeX and TeX is the need for class libraries,
How is that different from needing the latest tcl code for xml2rfc ?
and the lack of agreed upon way of distributing a
LaTeX/TeX file with the class files needed (part from what is standard),
or lack of automatic tools
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
If
we had a DTD that worked in other pieces of software, it could be
converted using commonly available software into text formats.
What is supplied with xml2rfc works fine with other pieces of software,
per Ned's response.
Perhaps I
Mark Andrews wrote:
I had wierd results with the following just printing out Zone and
not the rest of the lines in the table.
texttable
ttcol align=leftZone/ttcol
c10.IN-ADDR.ARPA/c
c16.172.IN-ADDR.ARPA/c
c17.172.IN-ADDR.ARPA/c
...
That's a bug
In message 4a544405.8020...@gmx.de, Julian Reschke writes:
Mark Andrews wrote:
I had wierd results with the following just printing out Zone and
not the rest of the lines in the table.
texttable
ttcol align=leftZone/ttcol
c10.IN-ADDR.ARPA/c
Mark Andrews wrote:
In message 4a544405.8020...@gmx.de, Julian Reschke writes:
Mark Andrews wrote:
I had wierd results with the following just printing out Zone and
not the rest of the lines in the table.
texttable
ttcol align=leftZone/ttcol
c10.IN-ADDR.ARPA/c
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
My apologies for the subject line. I'm very disappointed that the silent
majority of draft authors isn't speaking up. I can't imagine that the
vast majority of draft authors has absolutely no problems with XML2RFC.
So I'm assuming they've been
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 10:18:14 +0300, Lars Eggert lars.egg...@nokia.com
said:
LE I'm fully open to trying something new once someone creates a
LE different (better) tool, but until then, xml2rfc is OK.
I'd even argue that the xml2rfc language is pretty good and fairly
flexible. I've run into a
My apologies for the subject line. I'm very disappointed that the silent
majority of draft authors isn't speaking up. I can't imagine that the
vast majority of draft authors has absolutely no problems with XML2RFC.
So I'm assuming they've been ignoring the thread, hopefully the new
Russ White wrote:
If
we had a DTD that worked in other pieces of software, it could be
converted using commonly available software into text formats.
What is supplied with xml2rfc works fine with other pieces of software, per
Ned's response.
The
problem, from my perspective, isn't
--On Sunday, July 05, 2009 12:01 -0400 Joel M. Halpern
j...@joelhalpern.com wrote:
Having written a moderate number of drafts, using a number of
tools, I find that I strongly prefer using XML2RFC.
...
The current procedures allow for XML2RFC, Word, NROFF, and
manual text (if you really want.)
] On Behalf Of
Tim Bray
Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 12:26 AM
To: Lars Eggert
Cc: Iljitsch van Beijnum; IETF Discussion Mailing List
Subject: Re: xml2rfc is OK ( was: Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two
different threads - IETF Document Format)
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 12:18 AM, Lars Eggertlars.egg
Wes Beebee (wbeebee) wrote:
I created an xml2rfc template, like those available on xml.resource.org,
which I copy and modify for new drafts, and use the web version of the
tool - and everything works well enough for me.
I'm decidedly not picky about formatting, because I want to spend my
time
Julian Reschke wrote:
Again: it's much easier to test using any recent web browser, and using
rfc2629.xslt. Just press F5 (refresh) in the browser window, and there
you go.
BR, Julian
...
OK, I have been told off-list that this needs more explanation...
rfc2629.xslt implements the xml2rfc
On 7 jul 2009, at 15:30, Julian Reschke wrote:
Thus, you can simply open the XML in the browser, and let the
browser convert to HTML.
Notwithstanding everything else I've said, this is pretty cool, makes
it much easier to find problems in the XML.
Is this kind of stuff covered in the
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 7 jul 2009, at 15:30, Julian Reschke wrote:
Thus, you can simply open the XML in the browser, and let the browser
convert to HTML.
Notwithstanding everything else I've said, this is pretty cool, makes it
much easier to find problems in the XML.
Is this kind
I also had to copy rfc2629-other.ent, rfc2629-xhtml.ent and rfc2629.dtd
into the current directory to get it to work. And Firefox seems to be
pickier than IE about the XML it will accept.
Otherwise pretty cool.
Tony Hansen
t...@att.com
Julian Reschke wrote:
Julian Reschke
Tony Hansen wrote:
I also had to copy rfc2629-other.ent, rfc2629-xhtml.ent and rfc2629.dtd
into the current directory to get it to work. And Firefox seems to be
That hasn't got anything to do with the XSLT, but with the fact that the
browsers use proper XML parsers, while xml2rfc does not
In message 4a537666.7060...@att.com, Tony Hansen writes:
I also had to copy rfc2629-other.ent, rfc2629-xhtml.ent and rfc2629.dtd
into the current directory to get it to work. And Firefox seems to be
pickier than IE about the XML it will accept.
Otherwise pretty cool.
Tony Hansen
In message 200907080044.n680ir6n028...@drugs.dv.isc.org, Mark Andrews writes:
In message 4a537666.7060...@att.com, Tony Hansen writes:
I also had to copy rfc2629-other.ent, rfc2629-xhtml.ent and rfc2629.dtd
into the current directory to get it to work. And Firefox seems to be
pickier
... and don't get me started on LaTeX.
I am not sure what problems you had with LaTeX, but as someone who has
written thousands of pages using TeX,
I can't imagine anything better for professional document preparation.
On the other hand, the learning curve is relatively steep,
and its full
On 6 jul 2009, at 09.01, Yaakov Stein wrote:
... and don't get me started on LaTeX.
I am not sure what problems you had with LaTeX, but as someone who has
written thousands of pages using TeX,
I can't imagine anything better for professional document preparation.
On the other hand, the
Hi,
On 2009-7-5, at 16:24, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
My apologies for the subject line. I'm very disappointed that the
silent majority of draft authors isn't speaking up. I can't imagine
that the vast majority of draft authors has absolutely no problems
with XML2RFC. So I'm assuming they've
Lars Eggert wrote:
Hi,
On 2009-7-5, at 16:24, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
My apologies for the subject line. I'm very disappointed that the
silent majority of draft authors isn't speaking up. I can't imagine
that the vast majority of draft authors has absolutely no problems
with XML2RFC. So
On Mon Jul 6 08:46:24 2009, Julian Reschke wrote:
Also, we should keep in mind that xml2rfc can refer both to a
specific XML vocabulary, and a set of tools.
The vocabulary is relatively straightforward, and has been extended
by both MTR and others. At some point of time, we may want to
Colin Perkins wrote:
I have no significant problems using xml2rfc, and find it easier to
write Internet-Drafts using xml2rfc than I did using nroff, LaTeX, or
Microsoft Word.
+1
... and I am quite happy to use the online compiler.
Stewart
___
Iljitsch,
On Sun, 2009-07-05 at 15:24 +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
My apologies for the subject line. I'm very disappointed that the
silent majority of draft authors isn't speaking up. I can't imagine
that the vast majority of draft authors has absolutely no problems
with XML2RFC.
Shane Kerr wrote:
...
I had my first experience with xml2rfc recently, and I largely agree.
It's easy to totally screw up a document by misplaced XML, xml2rfc
Yes.
doesn't handle non-ASCII very well (important for some names), the error
That's an IETF doc format restriction, not an xml2rfc
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
My apologies for the subject line. I'm very disappointed that the
silent majority of draft authors isn't speaking up. I can't imagine
that the vast majority of draft authors has absolutely no problems
with XML2RFC. So I'm assuming they've been ignoring the thread,
hopefully the new subject
Lars since you asked: I have absolutely no problems with xml2rfc.
I find that xml2rfc takes too much control over the boilerplate and the
references to be a really useful tool. I dropped it after one attempt.
However, many of my colleagues use it, and as a result I've gotten many
Eric Rosen wrote:
Lars since you asked: I have absolutely no problems with xml2rfc.
I find that xml2rfc takes too much control over the boilerplate and the
references to be a really useful tool.
Given how extensive and strong the support for using it is, your assertion is
there.
Tony
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Hadriel Kaplan
Sent: Sunday, July 05, 2009 4:26 PM
To: Joel M. Halpern; Iljitsch van Beijnum
Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List
Subject: RE: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two
My apologies for the subject line. I'm very disappointed that the
silent majority of draft authors isn't speaking up. I can't imagine
that the vast majority of draft authors has absolutely no problems
with XML2RFC. So I'm assuming they've been ignoring the thread,
hopefully the new subject
What we need is the ability to write drafts with a standard
issue word processor.
Why? I suppose if there were indeed a *standard* word processor,
this might
be feasible, but I think by standard issue you mean commercially
available.
http://www.xmlmind.com/xmleditor/
Commercial, and the
Iljitsch van Beijnum writes...
I'm very disappointed that the silent majority of draft authors
isn't speaking up. I can't imagine that the vast majority of
draft authors has absolutely no problems with XML2RFC.
My personal experience with XML2RFC, as an I-D and RFC author has been
largely
On 5 Jul 2009, at 14:24, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
My apologies for the subject line. I'm very disappointed that the
silent majority of draft authors isn't speaking up. I can't imagine
that the vast majority of draft authors has absolutely no problems
with XML2RFC. So I'm assuming they've
Having written a moderate number of drafts, using a number of tools, I
find that I strongly prefer using XML2RFC.
One large draft I was working on was originally written using WORD. I
found it extremely difficult to work with (although I have a current
version of Word available at all times.)
Iljitsch van Beijnum iljitsch at muada dot com wrote:
My apologies for the subject line. I'm very disappointed that the
silent majority of draft authors isn't speaking up. I can't imagine
that the vast majority of draft authors has absolutely no problems
with XML2RFC. So I'm assuming they've
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
My apologies for the subject line. I'm very disappointed that the silent
majority of draft authors isn't speaking up. I can't imagine that the
vast majority of draft authors has absolutely no problems with XML2RFC.
I use the RFC 2629 format for all my drafts and
Carsten Bormann wrote:
What we need is the ability to write drafts with a standard
issue word processor.
Why? I suppose if there were indeed a *standard* word processor,
this might
be feasible, but I think by standard issue you mean commercially
available.
On 5 Jul 2009, at 14:24, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
My apologies for the subject line. I'm very disappointed that the
silent majority of draft authors isn't speaking up. I can't imagine
that the vast majority of draft authors has absolutely no problems
with XML2RFC. So I'm assuming they've
On 5 jul 2009, at 16:22, Dave Nelson wrote:
I suppose if there were indeed a *standard* word processor, this might
be feasible, but I think by standard issue you mean commercially
available.
Standard issue = standard, typical. I used it in the sense of any
decent.
Any word processor can
At 09:38 AM 7/5/2009, Colin Perkins wrote:
On 5 Jul 2009, at 14:24, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
My apologies for the subject line. I'm very disappointed that the
silent majority of draft authors isn't speaking up. I can't imagine
that the vast majority of draft authors has absolutely no
+1
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
I also support this view, and the reason why I think this is a good
idea is that the likelyhood we will see MORE (professional) tools
helping with the XML2RFC production if we do.
So I think it will help both views expressed on this list.
Patrik
On 5 jul 2009, at 21.55, James M. Polk
On 5 Jul 2009, at 20:52, James M. Polk wrote:
At 09:38 AM 7/5/2009, Colin Perkins wrote:
On 5 Jul 2009, at 14:24, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
My apologies for the subject line. I'm very disappointed that the
silent majority of draft authors isn't speaking up. I can't imagine
that the vast
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
I also would be against mandating xml2rfc.
I do agree that certain aspects of xml2rfc are convenient, but when it comes
to edit text, I really prefer .nroff
On 09-07-05 8:16 PM, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com
ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
I particularly like the fact that xml2rfc lets me
48 matches
Mail list logo
