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 4/7/2005 10:36, Brian E Carpenter allegedly 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

> I wonder how many of those have actually written a draft using both?

Let's see. I've done lots of drafts with both, using (in the nroff case)
several different macro packages. I have also produced several very large
non-RFC documents (in the thousand page range) using XML, nroff, and a variety
of other tools.

XML is the hands-down winner IMO. In fact I now use xml2rfc routinely for
non-IETF-related documents of various sorts.

				Ned

P.S. Anyone who uses an XML editor that requires mouse use which gets in the
way of simply entering text is using a crap tool. Plenty of alternatives exist
that work properly.

_______________________________________________

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]