Carsten Bormann wrote:
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".
http://www.xmlmind.com/xmleditor/
Commercial, and the personal edition is available at no cost.
I've gotten non-CS people up to speed on that tool in no time.
Best with:
http://code.google.com/p/xml2rfc-xxe/
+1
This is my preferred mechanism (thanks to Bill Fenner). It isn't
totally perfect but it makes it very difficult to produce invaliud xml
and does give you a good idea of what you will get.
One colleague has had problems due to exploiting (or maybe just not
getting caught by) some of the laxities in earlier versions getting
tightened up later, but it is generally easy enough to fix things up.
Bill's verifier is very helpful for this purpose.
http://www.fenron.com/~fenner/ietf/xml2rfc-valid/
As regards documentation, there are two sets of tutorial slides (maybe
could be described as 'basic' and 'intermediate' - I wrote the latter).
The FAQ is very useful and there are several templates, including the
one I did to accompany the tutorial I did. This has lots of explanatory
text in it with many examples - there is a stripped down version for
when you are experienced. These all fill in the holes left by the basic
documentation IMHO, including the complete list of PIs and what they do.
http://xml.resource.org/xml2rfcFAQ.html
Regards,
Elwyn
(But then, I use Emacs, which is non-commercial and free.)
Gruesse, Carsten
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf