On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 6:57 AM Richard Barnes <rlb@xxxxxx> wrote:
I'm glad it works for you. The non-IETF-habituated new authors I've worked with have found it mystifying. Including everyone from junior engineers to Fellows of major engineering organizations.
Indeed. And even a large number of habituated authors have gravitated towards markdown, despite the rather klunky workflow of MD -> XML -> TXT.
-Ekr
As Christian says, our continued attachment to bespoke tools is a barrier to getting new work in the IETF, and thus detrimental to the long-term health of the organization.--RLBOn Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 9:47 AM Randy Bush <randy@xxxxxxx> wrote:>> Tooling is just one of the problems with XML2RFC. The real issue is
>> that XML2RFC is completely specific to the IETF. This translate into
>> training ...
> It also has been optimized for the production of RFCs. Also note that
> many changes in the v3 vocab just align the language with HTML (lists
> and tables come to mind).
from an xml non-lover:
xml2rfc rocks! it produces the baroqe, designed by committee, internet
draft format from input which i can easily produce in my text editor.
and the support, maintenance, and responsiveness of the tools team is
simply stunning.
[ and for the poster who wished for a gooey, there is one ]
thank you!
randy
