On 5 Jul 2009, at 20:52, James M. Polk wrote:
At 09:38 AM 7/5/2009, Colin Perkins wrote:
On 5 Jul 2009, at 14:24, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
My apologies for the subject line. 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. So I'm assuming they've been ignoring the thread,
hopefully the new subject line will get some of them to chime in. If
that doesn't happen I'll shut up and try to figure out why I have so
much trouble with something that nobody else finds difficult.
I have no significant problems using xml2rfc, and find it easier to
write Internet-Drafts using xml2rfc than I did using nroff, LaTeX, or
Microsoft Word.
I also appreciate the added consistency in Internet-Draft formatting
that has resulted since xml2rfc has been widely adopted. This makes
it
a lot easier to print drafts, since they have consistent page sizes
and form-feed characters.
huh?
the current boilerplate has the first page being 54 lines long, and
subsequent pages being 57 lines long, but with the "footer" on the
56th line, and not the 57th.
The "footer" on the first page isn't on the last line of the page
either.
This isn't very uniform... perhaps unless you use some special
viewer to recreate this non-uniform display consistently.
It doesn't greatly offend me that the first page is three lines
shorter than the other pages. Nor does it confuse enscript, on those
occasions when I want to print an internet-draft or RFC.
This is very much unlike the situation pre-xml2rfc, when the page
length and width varied considerably for some drafts, and where form-
feeds were often inconsistently applied.
--
Colin Perkins
http://csperkins.org/
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf