[email protected]
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different threads - IETF Document For

Subject: RE: XML2RFC must die, was: Re: Two different threads - IETF Document Format
From: "Dave Nelson"
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2009 10:22:29 -0400
Iljitsch van Beijnum writes...

> I'm very disappointed that the silent majority of draft authors
> isn't speaking up. I can't imagine that the vast majority of
> draft authors has absolutely no problems with XML2RFC.

My personal experience with XML2RFC, as an I-D and RFC author has been
largely positive.  There does seem to be a bug in the latest pre-release
version around the use of ">" and "<" characters in ASCII art figures (as
arrow heads).  Other than that, I find it easy to use.

It's true that the documentation is merely adequate, especially in the area
of document meta-data.  I find it to be generally consistent with other open
source documentation.

> The problem with XML2RFC formatted drafts and RFCs is that you
> can't display them reasonably without using XML2RFC...

All you're saying is that XLM2RFC isn't WYSIWYG.  True enough.  Neither is

> ...and although XML2RFC can run on many systems in theory, in
> practice it's very difficult to install and run successfully because
> it's written in TCL and many XML2RFC files depend on the local 
> availability of references.

I rely on the on-line, web-based conversion service.  I'll admit that I've
never gotten a local install of XML2RFC to work.

> What we need is the ability to write drafts with a standard
> issue word processor. 

Why?  I suppose if there were indeed a *standard* word processor, this might
be feasible, but I think by "standard issue" you mean "commercially

Ietf mailing list
[email protected]

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>