RE: xml2rfc is OK ( was: Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different threads - IETF Document Format)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



I created an xml2rfc template, like those available on xml.resource.org,
which I copy and modify for new drafts, and use the web version of the
tool - and everything works well enough for me.

I'm decidedly not picky about formatting, because I want to spend my
time contributing content.

Because sometimes the error messages can be cryptic, when modifying the
XML tags, I frequently submit the document and generate HTML in order to
bound the number of XML tags that can contribute to a problem.

- Wes

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Tim Bray
Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 12:26 AM
To: Lars Eggert
Cc: Iljitsch van Beijnum; IETF Discussion Mailing List
Subject: Re: xml2rfc is OK ( was: Re: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two
different threads - IETF Document Format)

On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 12:18 AM, Lars Eggert<lars.eggert@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

> since you asked: I have absolutely no problems with xml2rfc.
>
> I used to edit in nroff, which wasn't compatible with my brain, and I 
> used Joe's Word template, which works OK, but I prefer something 
> ASCII-based for collaborative editing (for svn, diff, etc.)
>
> I'm fully open to trying something new once someone creates a 
> different
> ("better") tool, but until then, xml2rfc is OK.

What Lars said. -T
_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]