Iljitsch, On Sun, 2009-07-05 at 15:24 +0200, 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 had my first experience with xml2rfc recently, and I largely agree. It's easy to totally screw up a document by misplaced XML, xml2rfc doesn't handle non-ASCII very well (important for some names), the error output is non-intuitive, the tool didn't work off-line (no fun on an airplane), and so on. It seems to get in the way of writing the actual draft. Maybe there is no better way, but it seems hard to believe. (I am more willing to believe that there is no better way *now*, but that one may be found in the future.) Making it harder on authors (of which we seem to have plenty) in order to make things easier on editors and reviewers (which seem in short supply) may be the right trade-off. -- Shane _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf