--On Wednesday, 11 January, 2006 13:02 -0800 Bob Braden <braden@xxxxxxx> wrote: > *> The RFC editor has some problems which have not, to my > knowledge, *> been enumerated. > *> > > Your knowledge is apparently incomplete. The RFC Editor has > been actively experimenting with using xml2rfc for > publication, and we have been passing our problems along to > the tools team. As we get more experience, new ones show up. > There is not currently a version of xml2rfc that meets our > needs. Some of our editors do the major editing in XML, but > they find it most efficient and effective to switch to nroff > for the final cleanup of the (ASCII) document format. Bob, Let me suggest a way to look at the above, deriving in large measure from the experiences Ned Freed and I (mostly Ned, who did the heavy lifting) had with what are now RFCs 4288 and 4289. To the extent to which authors can hand XML to you, and get XML back with whatever substantive/ editorial changes you have made, it should ultimately not be a concern of anyone in the community how you make the transition between the final XML, with all of the text worked out, and the final formatting. In particular, if that step requires you to convert the XML to nroff and then massage the nroff, I don't think it should be an issue. The issue arises from handing you a format that contains generic markup and is editable but, because of your "via nroff" process, requires authors to deduce substantive and editorial changes from diffs and then retrofit them back into the XML for future use. Just my opinion, of course -- others may have other perspectives or agendas. john _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf