Ned Freed schrieb:
...
If there were a "track
substantive textual changes only" option, an "ignore format
changes" one, or some sort of "accept all format, font, and
style changes" command, I'd probably agree with you about
utility. But, given the reality of those systems today, I tend
to agree with Ned, even though I like a feature of those system
that you didn't mention (the ability to insert comments whose
appearance in the output can easily turned on and off. <cref>
and some processing options comes close, but isn't quite the
same).
IMO this is something that needs to be added to xml2rfc. It is very common to
have text of various sorts in drafts that has no business being in the final
RFC, and the current mechanisms for controlling this are a bit primitive.
Consider this a vote for some added functionality in xml2rfc to cover
this case.
People interested in change tracking for xml2rfc may want to check out
my extensions in rfc2629.xslt, see example documents such as
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-bind-14.html> and
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-bind-14.xml>.
..
Exactly so.
I will also add that while the temptation is great to use the most powerful
tool available, the most powerful tool is often not the best tool for the job.
When it comes to producing RFCs, xml2rfc plus a competent XML editing tool
(I'm currently using Exchanger XML Editor) is a clear winner in my book.
...
Exactly. When I write specs, the last thing I want to care about are
presentational issues. In fact, my experience is that "WYSIWYG" tools
tend to distract me from the content, slowing me down drastically. But
that may be just me :-)
Best regards, Julian
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf