What I do find somewhat tedious is coming to edit an internet draft or RFC someone else wrote and discovering that I have to spend an hour or so marking up their text because no editing source exists. > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On > Behalf Of Frank Ellermann > Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 9:15 PM > To: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: RFCs should be distributed in XML > > Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > > [your premise snipped ;-] > > tell why RFC 2629 is not the mandatory official format for > RFC, even > > now after six years? > > It's an excellent tool to create real drafts and RfCs. For > "real" read text/plain us-ascii in the format defined > elsewhere (2223bis among others). > > It's not the only available tool. Bruce is the maintainer of > the nroff tools, and somebody else offers MS word tools. > > The tools team apparently adopted RfC 2629 as the primary > format for the automatical handling of submissions, and one > of the "document set" drafts also builds on this format. > > Just let it be, eventually it will be as you want it. > Numerous tools like rfcmarkup still build on the "real" > format, and nothing's wrong with that. > > With xml2rfc you can now also create unpaginated output, nice > for creating / posting a quick diff. > That feature was added this year, it's still a living > project, last DTD updates also this year. > > The EULA boilerplates (= 78/79) are also still a moving > target (unfortunately). This is all not yet ready to be cast > in stone. Only the general direction is IMHO more or less > clear. Bye, Frank > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf