Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 09:01:22AM -0700, > Joe Touch <touch@xxxxxxx> wrote > a message of 34 lines which said: > >>> IMHO, IETF should always publish the "source" of its documents >>> (the current RFC process is far from perfect in that respect). >> Which source > > The source. The author certainly knows it (yes, I'm aware that the RFC > editor performs changes which are not backported in the author's copy, > a really annoying thing; that's why I said the current process is > bad). That's part of the problem. The other is that 'source' is useful only with a snapshot of the tools that are used to process it. XML2RFC is a moving target in that regard, as is Word. ... >> Why would inter-source conversion be more useful than cut-and-paste? > > I don't have experience with MS-Word but (re)generating the RFC 2629 > source from the ASCII version is a big pain (while there are automatic > converters, for instance from *roff to XML and, of course, from one > XML to the other). In Word it's fairly simple to paste, remove the leftside indent, and rewrap the paragraphs quickly. Setting heading types, lists, and figures can be automated with scripts, but I haven't bothered to do that; it's sufficiently quick to do that manually, IMO. I have heard there are tools to back-port output to XML or nroff approximations which, like Word paste, often need manual adjusting, but haven't used them myself. Joe
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf