[rfc-i] (OT) HTML Editors (was: Re: draft-rfc-image-files-03)

"Martin J. Dürst" duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
Mon Apr 9 18:35:24 PDT 2012


On 2012/04/10 0:14, Paul E. Jones wrote:
>> 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.

You may want to try Amaya (http://www.w3.org/Amaya/). It doesn't create 
a single bit of style information or identifiers unless you tell it. 
It's a bit difficult to get used to (try to get a feel for what F2 and 
Return do), and frequent saves are recommended because it's not exactly 
as stable as a product that's sold, but it's really great if you care 
about the structure of what you produce. I personally use it a lot.

Regards,    Martin.


> 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.
>
> Paul
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list