Byung-Hee HWANG <bh at izb dot knu dot ac dot kr> wrote:
Already, above, Douglas pointed out for your comments correctly. RFC > format is different from a market share format by the purpose. Do you > have been think about the word "compatibility" and "standard"? Here is > IETF, not a market.. ;;
This thread has been headed down the wrong path from the outset, as soon as Tony Hain wrote on July 1:
An alternative would be for some xml expert to fix xml2rfc to parse > through the xml output of Word. If that happened, then the > configuration options described in RFC 3285 would allow for wysiwyg > editing, and I would update 3285 to reflect the xml output process. I > realize that is a vendor specific option, but it happens to be a > widely available one.
and Douglas replied by going off on Word:
Word's closed code is continuously changing. Availability of this > closed application depends upon OS compatibility and version > regressions. Both are moving targets. In addition, Word formats > permit inclusion of potentially destructive scripts within highly > flexible and obfuscating structures.
Nobody in this thread has suggested publishing RFCs or distributing I-Ds in any native Microsoft Word format. The only thing Tony suggested was to "fix xml2rfc" to convert XML documents generated by Word into the standard format for RFCs and I-Ds, just as xml2rfc already converts XML documents written in the RFC 2629(bis) format into the standard format for RFCs and I-Ds. I modified that, along the course of the thread, to suggest that a separate "word2rfc" tool might be a more sensible option. To the extent the .doc format is "highly flexible" -- which isn't really true anyway; it's been rather stable since 1997, and the new XML-based format is called .docx -- I can see that as an obstacle for someone writing such a conversion tool. But I challenge anyone to find the slightest suggestion in this thread that we should publish IETF documents directly in Word format. Let's at least argue the same point, folks. --Doug Ewell * Thornton, Colorado, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14http://www.ewellic.orghttp://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.htmlhttp://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages ˆ _______________________________________________Ietf mailing listIetf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf