Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' to Informational RFC

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Apr 6, 2005 7:10 AM, Alex Rousskov <rousskov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 2005/04/06 (MDT), <fenner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I have to admit that I use nroff about 75% of the time and XML about
> > 25%, I'm much happier about the postscript/PDF output options from
> > nroff than from XML,
> 
> To be fair, poor output quality is not XML's fault, it is tool's fault.
> Popular tools improve with time (and IETF can influence/speedup such
> improvement if needed).

Very true - I'm just talking abot the current state of affairs.

> > and I can't imagine having written the 120-page PIM spec in XML.
> 
> My largest XML-based RFC is only 60 pages, but I do not see why 120 pages
> would be "too long" for XML. Can you clarify? Just curious...

Well, I think the main reason is that any time we needed custom
handling for a topic it was easy to write a macro to handle it; the
same thing in XML would probably mean adding preprocessors (perhaps an
xsl transform).  We also ended up with some tables that required some
pretty fine tuning to get to fit in 7x characters; my gut tells me
that would be harder to do in XML.  Finally, the optional figures in
the postscript version would not have been supported by the currently
available tools.

  Bill

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]