I think that a lot of the objections made against XML/HTML vs nroff are ultimately due the fact that adding end elements as well as start elements makes for twice the work. One way around this is to use better editing tools. I remain consistently disappointed by the XML editing tools I have tried. Another approach I have been experimenting with is to drop in an alternative lexical analyzer into an existing XML parser. Instead of the 'strict' format required by the specification the lexer has a bunch of intelligent rules to make the process of editing less tedious. For example the feature I like of Wikipedia markup is that paragraph breaks are automatically infered from a blank separating line (i.e. look for nl ws* nl). Other obvious changes are to get rid of namespace prexixes unless there is actual ambiguity, to automatically infer end tags at paragraph breaks and to allow /> as a means of closing the current lexical context. In the rare case that block structure is actually needed beyond this explicit blocking can be used. The feature of wikipedia markup that I do not like is the fact that the markup soon becomes unweildy once you go beyond the most commonly used features. I don't know many people who can use the wiki table markup for example. I am currently experimenting with a markup where elements and attributes have the same consistent syntax <p color=red> becomes <p <color red>> In short we end up more or less back to S-expressions with angle brackets instead of round ones. The main difference is that in document structure it is really not necessary to throw in all the close tags, they only distract. If something can be infered then infer it. > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On > Behalf Of Dave Crocker > Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 12:44 AM > To: Bill Fenner > Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx; paul.hoffman@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Alternative formats for IDs > > > > > > I don't think that converting to xml is the same class of work. > > There's a great deal of semantic information that should be > encoded in > > the XML that isn't in the submitted text and doesn't have > to be in the > > nroff. > > > Strictly speaking, you are certainly right. > > But I lived with nroff for quite a few years and I have had > to do quite a few txt-2-xml2rfc conversions recently. The > difference in semantic encoding, that you cite, is offset by > how easily nroff formatting errors can be made and not > readily detected. > > Mostly, this sort of conversion work has a small, relatively > standardized "vocabulary" of text to add or change and one > gets into a rhythm. From that perspective, I suspect the work > is about the same. The real difference is that debugging the > xml2rfc conversion is probably MUCH easier. > > d/ > > -- > > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > <http://bbiw.net> > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf