[rfc-i] Making life easy for authors/editors
Andrew G. Malis
agmalis at gmail.com
Sat Jul 7 14:07:25 PDT 2012
The output is a usual Internet-draft text file formatted for nits
checking and submitting via the tools page. But reading drafts isn't
the focus of the tool, it's easily writing them.
The point of my email is that whatever metalanguage is chosen in the
future as the internal/normative/canonical format for drafts and RFCs,
there needs to be easily obtainable and maintained tools that allow
people that have no knowledge of the metalanguage to easily write
their documents, preferably via a WSIWYG editor.
On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Tim Bray <tbray at textuality.com> wrote:
> Does it have an output mode that will work for small screens?
> On Jul 7, 2012 7:44 AM, "Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I've been reading the recent discussions with interest, but haven't
>> seen a particular issue addressed, as least recently. As a draft and
>> RFC author/editor (and WG chair), my primary interest isn't in how
>> drafts and RFCs are stored for posterity, but rather how they're
>> generated. I currently use NroffEdit to write drafts, because it's
>> easy. Even though years ago I could generate raw nroff with the best
>> of them, that's not my interest - I just want to write the words and
>> not have to program the metalanguage. NroffEdit makes that very easy -
>> it's a WYSIWYG editor that generates the nroff for me. Just give me a
>> tool that easy, and I don't really care what metalanguage it generates
>> and is used by the RFC Editor.
>> rfc-interest mailing list
>> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest