Xml2rfc has a mechanism for adding comments which is a little bit more trouble than M$Word's but works in very similar ways. You are right that revision marking is not so easy but the various diff tools help. Maybe we ought to ask for some way to do this before the xml2rfc improvement window closes! Regards, Elwyn > -----Original Message----- > From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:stbryant@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: 08 April 2005 14:11 > To: Elwyn davies > Cc: 'Brian E Carpenter'; ned.freed@xxxxxxxxxxx; 'Bruce Lilly'; 'Alex > Rousskov'; ietf@xxxxxxxx; 'IETF TOOLS discussion' > Subject: Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' > to Informational RFC > > > > Elwyn davies wrote: > > > FYI I am an ex-Word user, now fully converted to xml2rfc. > > > > I thought Word was a convenient way to conform to Draft style and handle > > revision control but was frustrated by the toolchain. The main problem > I > > found was the badly broken 'Generic Text Printer' driver which has not > > worked properly for a number of versions of Word in my experience. > Symptoms > > include: > > - unilaterally changing the paragraph width so that it outputs one > character > > on each line starting from some random point in the document > > - unilaterally changing the fount height to a microscopic value so that > text > > is converted to a horizontal line in random paragraphs > > > > Microsoft are in denial about these bugs. Presumably there is not much > call > > for the Generic Text Printer. (I must admit I haven't bothered to try it > in > > my most recent version of Word, but I wouldn't hold my breath). > > > > I am aware of other possible ways to get the ASCII output but they are > all > > just as flaky and tedious. > > > > I'll live with the need for balanced tags (I am pretty adept at > detecting > > what has gone wrong by now) and some other minor irritations for the > sake of > > knowing that I won't end up fighting the tools when trying to get a > draft > > out close to the deadlines (when of course the random bugs noted above > > always strike!) > > > > I know several other authors who have defected for similar reasons. > > I have never hit that bug. I might have a different view if I had. > > What is useful is the ability for authors to imbed comments to each other > and track changes inline etc as the version develops. I have never tried > the xml tool chain but I assume that it does not have that feature? > > That said, as a person that thinks in diagrams and not in text, I would > take any tool chain, regardless of cost or convenience, if the end > result was that normative IETF text had "proper" drawings just like > IEEE and ITU. > > Stewart > > > > > Regards, > > Elwyn > > > > > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of > >>Stewart Bryant > >>Sent: 08 April 2005 10:47 > >>To: Brian E Carpenter > >>Cc: ned.freed@xxxxxxxxxxx; Bruce Lilly; Alex Rousskov; ietf@xxxxxxxx; > IETF > >>TOOLS discussion > >>Subject: Re: Last Call: 'Requirements for IETF Draft Submission Toolset' > >>to Informational RFC > >> > >>I would also be interesting to know how many use Microsoft Word > >>to produce drafts. > >> > >>Stewart > >> > >>Brian E Carpenter wrote: > >> > >> > >>>Regardless of the interesting side-discussion about 'voting', > >>>what the toy shows after about a day is: > >>> > >>>prefer nroff: 8 > >>>prefer xml: 37 > >>>neither: 9 > >>> > >>>which implies a few hundred abstentions, of course. > >>> > >>> Brian > >>> > >> > >> > >>_______________________________________________ > >>Ietf mailing list > >>Ietf@xxxxxxxx > >>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > > > > > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf