ned.freed@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
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.
I agree. I have written a fair number of drafts (some of them lengthy) using word, nroff, latex, and XML. There's really no contest, XML is the way to go.
Of course, I can imagine some toolset improvements but these improvements are minor compared to some of the major (imho) issues that the other alternatives have. And I can also imagine some special purpose support (mibs, state tables, you name it) that people may need. Personally, when I have that kind of issues I usually end up writing a script that does some pre- or postprocessing to achieve what is needed. Interestingly, I run into this on a regular basis when using nroff, latex, and word. But I have needed only minor things in the last couple of years when I have been using XML.
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.
Just use emacs, that's what I do :-)
--Jari
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf