[rfc-i] Does the canonical RFC format need to be "readable" by developers and others?

[Joe Touch]

On 6/22/2012 8:27 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 2012-06-22 15:34, Joe Touch wrote:
>> On Jun 22, 2012, at 1:42 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>>> So in my experience, XML2RFC is just barely better than creating the RFC format by hand, but it is a constant annoyance and time waster on many levels.
>>
>> +1
>
> In the interests of balance, -1.
>
> I used nroff until about 2003, tried the MS Word approach with
> frustrating results in 2004,

FWIW, the pre-Nov 2004 version of the Word template had many issues - it 
wasn't a real template even in the sense of Word. If you tried a version 
before I posted the first revision in late Oct 2004, it might be worth 
checking again.

Joe

> and switched to xml2rfc in 2005.
>
> Yes, it is sometimes picky, but the results are good and I
> rarely have trouble with idnits. It is indescribably better than
> trying to do it by hand.
>
>      Brian
>
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>