On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 02:50:39AM -0400, Ted Lemon wrote: > Given that the RFC input format is XML, any editor that doesn’t > operate on that XML is always going to put you at a disadvantage. It lyx2rfc is proof to the contrary! :) Really, it produces XML in xml2rfc format. If all you want is .unpg, ..txt, or .html format, you'll never see the XML. But you get to submit it (since you have to). > would be nice if there were a standard format we could use, but I XML is standard; I assume you meant "some other standard format". I don't propose doing away with XML entirely, and perhaps not at all. As I've said, I think XML is absolutely the right tool for this job. What sucks is that XML is not a UI. Even if a LaTeX collaborative editor could be used, I'd still expect to use LaTeX->XML + XSLs to be able to programmatically extract metadata and other tasks, and at least for some time to convert to xml2rfc. > don’t know of one that would work. Using markdown, or Latex, or > whatever, just adds one more layer of translation you have to deal > with later. I occasionally try to use markdown, but keep reverting > back to XML because it’s just one less step. I agree as to markdown. Markdown we might never be able to programmatically extract metadata we need, and we wouldn't have a good migration path for RFC production. It's XML, or LaTeX that can be converted to XML, or something similar. Nico --
