Paul E. Jones
paulej at packetizer.com
Mon Apr 9 08:14:22 PDT 2012
> The most problematic part is the step from the source format to the
> submission format. I've never used HTML editors so I don't know how good
> they are, but when I've looked at generated HTML it has always looked
> terrible and even if that's not an issue then general purpose HTML editors
> are probably not going to support all the XML2RFC-like metadata tagging
> that we need.
This has been my experience with HTML editors, too. I have not found one I
like, so I just use vi to edit HTML. I do that and use a collection of
scripts that effectively produce a complete HTML document from a collection
of HTML parts.
HTML editors I've used (and admittedly not many as I got turned off quickly)
produce a lot of stylesheet information, identifiers, etc. in the documents
that then make it a challenge to incorporate inside other web pages. Rarely
would I ever create a standalone .html file from such tools that is not
incorporated inside a more complete web page.
If we go the HTML route, I'm probably going to have to have a script to
convert my auto-generated HTML files into a format acceptable to the IETF,
because (unlike a good many who like writing I-Ds using vi or notepad,
claiming it allows them to focus on the text), I find using Word a heck of a
lot easier to produce documents, also making the same argument that it
allows me to focus on the text. That's what it's designed to do, after all.
But, I'd be willing to try a different editor if it produced HTML that
needed no massaging.
More information about the rfc-interest