> I can't escape the feeling that this discussion of using markup language > editing to produce RFCs, is a bit upside down. > I'm much more concerned with draft writers having to deal with markup > syntax than I am about drafters trying to put a page break in a sensible > location, or format their text in a readable fashion. > The latter is not a problem that consumes a lot of energy, neither do I > believe that drafters concern with readability is a matter that causes the > RFC production center a lot of headache. So why is this a matter of > concern? > I honestly think people waste a lot more time trying to figure out how to > properly form correct markup syntax, than they do with format tweaking. My experience has been the exact opposite. Markup syntax is a known quantity that is easily accomodated, especially if you use a markup-aware editor. The editor I use closes elements automatically, provides constant syntax checks, and lets me toggle sections of the document in and out of view. It's been a very long time since I've given any real thought to the supposed difficulties of dealing with markup syntax. But page breaks... I have on more occasions than I care to recall spent a swacking big chunk of time adjusting them. Fix one widow, an orphan appears somewhere else. And yes, I realize this is not really necessary for I-Ds, but when the breaks are really bad I just can't help but try and fix them. > In my ideal world, where XML would work at its best, drafters would > concentrate on writing text in a fashion that could be captured into XML > (or any functional markup language), making XML the output of the editing > process rather than the input. Brian Reid once came up with a nice term for what results when this goal is pursued to it's logical conclusion: What You Get is What You Deserve. > That way it would not hurt the drafters if the XML syntax was extended to > capture both content and format, making it a complete input to the > rendering process. > Given the rather primitive structure of RFCs, writing such editor seem not > to be such a grim task. I'm even tempted to provide one in the next major > version of NroffEdit, where you could choose nroff and/or XML as markup, > but never bother with it when writing your draft. The task may not be grim, but the end results of such exercises - and there have been a lot of them - usually are. Ned _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf