Is it really that hard?
Even crusty old idiots like me have worked out how to use an editor to make XML that is acceptable to XML2RFC. I doubt that I am clever or more talented than Fellows of major engineering organizations.
All tools (even github) require to be learned.
Replace tools with better tools, by all means.
But don’t make changes for personal preference: that way lies unending debates about whose preference is best.
Thanks,
Adrian
From: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Richard Barnes
Sent: 10 July 2019 14:57
To: Randy Bush <randy@xxxxxxx>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@xxxxxx>; IETF Rinse Repeat <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Things that used to be clear (was Re: Evolving Documents (nee "Living Documents") side meeting at IETF105.)
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.
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.
--RLB
On 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
