On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 04:25:32PM +0200, Julian Reschke wrote: > 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. That would be nice, actually, though if you have to xrefs to the same document, which two xrefs diagree as to normativity you'd have a problem, but whatever. > > 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).. Ah, yes, spell checking is one reason I like to use LyX: it has spell checking functionality (including continuous spell-checking). But I don't have to copy/paste around -- I just use LyX then lyx2rfc (directly from File->Export->rfc). Nico --
