Iljitsch van Beijnum writes... > I'm very disappointed that the silent majority of draft authors > isn't speaking up. I can't imagine that the vast majority of > draft authors has absolutely no problems with XML2RFC. My personal experience with XML2RFC, as an I-D and RFC author has been largely positive. There does seem to be a bug in the latest pre-release version around the use of ">" and "<" characters in ASCII art figures (as arrow heads). Other than that, I find it easy to use. It's true that the documentation is merely adequate, especially in the area of document meta-data. I find it to be generally consistent with other open source documentation. > The problem with XML2RFC formatted drafts and RFCs is that you > can't display them reasonably without using XML2RFC... All you're saying is that XLM2RFC isn't WYSIWYG. True enough. Neither is nroff. > ...and although XML2RFC can run on many systems in theory, in > practice it's very difficult to install and run successfully because > it's written in TCL and many XML2RFC files depend on the local > availability of references. I rely on the on-line, web-based conversion service. I'll admit that I've never gotten a local install of XML2RFC to work. > What we need is the ability to write drafts with a standard > issue word processor. Why? I suppose if there were indeed a *standard* word processor, this might be feasible, but I think by "standard issue" you mean "commercially available". _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf