Joe, "It’d be nice if it wasn’t just me supporting Word for RFCs.."? As you know, I recently submitted an erratum on the Word template RFC that the IETF itself should provide more support for Word for RFCs by hosting and maintaining the template etc., rather than referencing a dead url. As a reminder, see: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5778 You said, in advocating rejecting that erratum, that "Appendix A provides the detailed information and procedure needed to create the .dot file from the Normal.dot included with Word. The version provided online [now at your personal website] was as a convenience and is not critical to the use of this RFC" i.e. in providing a non-essential non-critical convenience at a non-referenced url, you're not actually supporting Word for RFCs. So, you're rejecting an erratum that points out the need for more IETF support for the Word template, while also wishing for more support for the Word template but saying that any Word user can just build their own template from scratch in an RFC they'll never think to find without needing any other support whatsoever? That's... quite something. Probably not very inclusive, though. L. Lloyd Wood lloyd.wood@xxxxxxxxxxx http://about.me/lloydwood On Friday, 12 July 2019, 06:19:40 GMT+10, Joe Touch <touch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Jul 11, 2019, at 11:33 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > If I am producing a -bis document, I pull the .xml from wherever I can find it and convert it to word. Then I convert it back to upload it. It’s 2019. It’d be nice if it wasn’t just me supporting Word for RFCs. The output could still print/dump to XML with IETF-specific tags. Joe
