On 2011-02-25 05:38, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 05:11:00PM +0100, Henrik Levkowetz wrote: >> The ratio of gripes against idnits to actual bug reports is getting to >> be a bit annoying; and I'd like to suggest that people either submit >> bug reports, or direct the complaints against the requirements of >> 1id-guidelines.txt rather than against the tool which checks the >> requirements if the problem is that the requirements are too strict. > > You're quite right that I'm using "idnits" as a portmanteau for the > whole "1id-guidelines checking at submission" bundle. My apologies > for being imprecise. I am indeed complaining about the latter and not > about the former. For the record, I positively like the facts that the submission tool carries out basic conformance checks and that 1id-guidelines is picky. 1. I like this as an author, because it avoids me having to check things as a separate step (until the draft is ready for AD review). 2. I like this as a reader and reviewer of drafts, because it leads to a very useful degree of uniformity in the way drafts are laid out. And while I'm at it, I like the fact that xml2rfc does a lot of fiddly stuff for me that I always found a pain in the neck with other methods. Yours, A Satisfied Customer _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf