> Indeed. And even a large number of habituated authors have gravitated > towards markdown, despite the rather klunky workflow of MD -> XML -> TXT. i do latex, md, xml2rfc, and even text. tool use is what differentiates us from revived 40,000 year old nematodes. i would be happier with the md -> xml path if it did the boilerplate. and there are lot of features in xml2rfc to which i am attached, e.g. intra-doc xrefs. when we submit a paper to some conference/journal, there is a latex template, serious formatting rules, ... we all have our rituals and flavors of ice cream. i, for one, am happy if good work gets done well elsewhere. i care that good work gets done. and, to be tactless, a fair bit of what we produce may not fit well in that set. and the problem does not lie with he tooling or document format. i actually try to help (when asked) folk from other cultures get work done in the ietf. i think the barriers we place to entry are not so much xml, which pretty much anyone who has a *technical* contribution can deal with in short. it is arrogance, arcane rituals, artificial arguments, and alliteration. randy
