--On Tuesday, 29 November, 2005 12:00 +0100 Brian E Carpenter
<brc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> ...
>> Were there still regular use of nroff in the broad community,
>> there might be an argument in favor of continuing to have it
>> as the internal representation of authoritative rfc text.
>>
>> But there isn't. Whereas xml2rfc has been gaining broad (and
>> enthusiastic) adoption.
>
> The anonymous survey that I ran a few months ago, in case
> people have forgotten,
> appeared to show about 17% preferring nroff and 68% preferring
> xml2rfc.
At the risk of stating the obvious, 17% is far too large a
number to support the claim that there is no regular use in the
broad community. One or two percent might be, but...
Disclaimer: Of all of the ways I have composed I-D and RFC text,
nroff has never been one of them -- this is just an observation,
not an attempt to defend a personal habit.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf