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
> 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