Ned, On 11-03-24 9:48 PM, "Ned Freed" <ned.freed@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> 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 you are probably pretty experienced user and you probably spent some time setting up your environment to get where you are. I believe having to deal with markup syntax poses a significant barrier to those not as experienced as you. > >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. It's been a very long time since I experienced any problem with formatting. :) That was in the old days when I used a separate Nroff compiler. Using NroffEdit's side by side view of source and text has completely removed that issue for me. And I think that is true also for an inexperienced user. > >> 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. Great one.... And so true. > >> 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. I believe you are right, looking in the mirror. But time changes. I think this is an area where open source development and open source libraries really has provided a revolution. If we start with creating the specifications that would allow such tool to be created, then you don't need a huge software organization and kazillions of dollar any more to piece together something that actually could be really useful.. I know I'm an idealist.. I still believe in simplicity. /Stefan _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf