Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: > > > --On 13. januar 2006 22:40 -0800 Joe Touch <touch@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> I haven't used it for "production" yet, but it looks wonderful - not >>> WYSIWYG, but WYSIPU - What You See Is Pretty Useful. >> >> Pretty useful compared to text-editing the source code, yes. Compared to >> WYSIWYG, still primitive, unfortunately. >> >> If the goal is to allow the output - i.e., the RFC - to be useful for >> data mining, why not allow the XML tags to be used *just* for the >> portions that we expect to extract (i.e., for the data to be mined), and >> let WYSIWYG editors format the rest of the document structure. >> >> I.e., let each tool be used where it works? > > FWIW - I hate WYSIWYG with a passion. > I *never* want to consider pages, fonts, indentation, section numbers or > justification when I'm typing. I want to get the text in there, mark > clearly where the sections are, make my lists as lists, and *get the > text written*. > > Then I want to get it readable with minimal effort - and be able to > change it later *without* having to guess at the difference between a > section heading and a line that just happens to start with a number. I agree completely. Everything you're describing is a function of WYSIWYG with named styles - which is what it has been for 20+ years, rather than just "make this bold", "make this 12pt". That's the WYSIWYG I was assuming (style-WYSIWYG?). Every system I've seen to date for XML tries very hard to approach what S-WYSIWYG was capable of 20+ years ago. While some XML editors are certainly better than editing source, it's nowhere near as capable as S-WYSIWYG. > Semantic markup works for me - for the *whole* document. Agreed, but my point is that there's no reason to force each of us to use a particular semantic markup where the semantics of the result are not relevant. There's no utility to plowing through all the markup associated with lists and headings, when that's not what data needs to be mined. What I'm proposing is that RFCs use text/PDF/PS as the archived, authoritative file (sure - we can argue about which of those three, or maybe others), but that to extract MIBs/authors/references those tags need to be in the authoritative version, but the others do not. Joe
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf