On Tue, 2005/04/05 (MDT), <ned.freed@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue April 5 2005, Bruce Lilly wrote:
While I have no data to either confirm or refute that assertion, RFC 2223 section 3 and the draft successor to that document both explicitly state that the RFC Editor uses nroff.
Yes, but speaking from personal experience, that doesn't mean they'll use
_your_ nroff sources. I stopped bothering to send in my nroff sources when I found out that the RFC Editor wasn't using it
That was my (possibly incorrect) impression as well: RFC Editor creates nroff from XML or plain text. Thus, I did not consider nroff as "source" in this context (note that I did not say RFC Editor is not using nroff). Again, I could be wrong.
However, I would like to avoid focusing too much attention on current RFC Editor practices, regardless of whether you consider them perfect or arcane. I am sure that folks will write many tools to extract info from XML drafts once XML drafts are available. I would be surprised if the same would happen to nroff sources, especially long-term, especially in competition with XML. There are many reasons, including general knowledge of the subject and libraries availability.
Does anybody have any statistics showing the percentage of current Internet-Drafts written using xml2rfc? I do not volunteer, but I suspect there is something specific to xml2rfc plain text output that a simple script can detect while grepping through the drafts archive. Can the same be done for nroff? These stats would help us to understand at least the current environment better...
Thank you,
Alex.
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
