On 11.07.2019 15:41, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 2:51 AM Ted Lemon <mellon@xxxxxxxxx <mailto: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
No, it does not. Two places. The insertion of the second one could indeed be automated, but then you would have to give a hint about normative vs informative.
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. ...
I occasionally use Word for that (generate HTML, copy, paste into Word).
...
Best regards, Julian
