[rfc-i] Who uses Word, was Proposed new RFC submission requirements

Joe Touch touch at isi.edu
Fri Jun 1 10:07:31 PDT 2012

On 6/1/2012 9:59 AM, Martin Rex wrote:
> Julian Reschke wrote:
>> On 2012-05-28 05:47, Joe Touch wrote:
>>> ...
>>> Some use it to check code and abnf.
>>> If you're serious about automated tools, grammar and spelling count.
>>> ...
>> There's no problem with people using Word to check grammar and spelling.
>> But there *is* a problem if suddenly defects in Word's HTML output start
>> to dumb down the submission format.
> The existance&maintenance of a Microsoft Word template has not impaired the
> use of xml2rfc in the past, and I am not aware of any attempts to
> change that.

As others have noted, spending time on the tools takes away from time 
spent on content. That's why I migrated to Word many years ago.

> But what concerns me is an attempt to make specific features of xml2rfc
> a new requirement for the submission format, which would significantly
> impair any other existing tooling available for I-D editing, most of
> them *MUCH* easier to use than xml2rfc.


Further, xml2rfc is just more complex, not "smarter" IMO (vs. 
"dumbed-down" Word HTML).


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list