On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 2:51 AM Ted Lemon <mellon@xxxxxxxxx> 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 would be nice if there were a standard format we could use, but I 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.
The XML2RFC markup requires me to make edits in three different places to do references. Using Word as my source editor, I only put the citation where I want it to go and the converter does all the rest.
Since I have a form of dyslexia, I rely on Word to check spelling. It is also useful to have the grammar checking where Microsoft doesn't get it wrong. Their team seems to be under the misapprehension that Skunk and Blight isn't stupid and ignorant. At any rate, passive voice is often what is wanted in technical documentation.
But the bigger point here surely, is that this thread is now an editor war. People have different preferences in their editors. That is only a problem when folk who insist on using 40 year old or 30 year old tooling because they refuse to learn better try to foist their stuff on other people.
I agree with Keith that XML editors suck. I have used tons of them and they all seem to be suckky. Generating *a* form of XML is one thing. Generating XML to arbitrary schemas quite another. I suspect it is because there are actual constraints in text formatting and XML is more expressive.
I haven't found a really good HTML editor either.
