On Thu, 2005/04/07 (MDT), <blilly@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Date: 2005-04-06 12:45 From: "Alex Rousskov" <rousskov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
As others have pointed out, nroff (or MS Word, etc.) fans can still submit their drafts using the Toolset (as currently defined); they just will not submit their sources.
Which implies, for the case of documents where figures (etc.) differ in PostScript/PDF and plain text versions, that there will still be a substantial amount of manual effort required. See draft sections 1 & 8.
Can you clarify what requires what effort? I have a feeling you are not talking about the Toolset here (as it does not require extra effort) but IETF requirements to supply plain text format if there is a PDF/PS format. I do not see where nroff comes in here.
Generation of text, PostScript, and PDF from single troff source is not only feasible, it is de rigeur.
Great (and I think the same can be said about XML sources).
It seems silly to specify a toolset purportedly to provide benefits of automation, but not to specify automated processing of a widely-used source format which is quite amenable to automated processing.
From [my interpretation of] the Tools team point of view, the nroff source format is not or will not be used widely enough to include it in the initial Toolset specs, especially since nroff-using authors can still use the Toolset as specified and benefit from automation the Toolset provides. If you disagree, you have at least three options:
(a) Raise the issue with IESG. Demand that the Submission draft is not published until nroff support is explicitly included by the Tools team.
(b) Raise the issue with IESG. Send specific Submission draft changes to support nroff. Demand their inclusion.
(c) Publish "Requirements for nroff support in the Draft Submission Toolset" RFC.
My biased recommendation is to use a non-confrontational option (c).
Alex.
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf