[rfc-i] Pagination requirements
mrex at sap.com
Thu May 24 07:08:25 PDT 2012
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> Martin Rex wrote:
> > I personally do not believe that making profound CSS & XML skills
> > and numerous to-be-written complex tools a prerequisite for
> > authoring I-Ds would significantly raise the entry barrier for
> > new IETF contributions.
> The bar is already fairly high today, because you need to be familiar
> with uncommon tools to create documents in formatted ASCII directly,
> or you need to use XML2RFC.
The xml2rfc bar is a magnitude to high.
But NRoffEdit is really trivial. As I said, you can be *completely*
ignorant about NRoff when using NRoffEdit. The online help contains
a 1 page, listing 12 macros, 4 escape sequences, and you can treat
the TOC described at the bottom simply as a black box managed by
Since NRoffEdit is doing _immediate_ WYSIWYG with your input, learning
to use these 12 Macros happens to you automatically within 30 minutes
while your already writing the first two pages of your new I-D.
Learning XML/HTML/CSS, on the other hand is really painful if
your using a text editor and a Web Browser due to the need to
constantly save, switching of app, process, swichting of app ,reload,
switching of app (wash, rinse, repeat).
Since creating tools for a HTML-based future authoring format
will require a lot of work, a lot of time, and plenty of bugfixing,
how about a limited evaluation test for those who need this so
badly, of a few I-Ds being authored and additionally made available
in a new format? If the new authoring format is so much more powerful
and flexible than the existing, then it should be simple to render it
additionally in the traditional 72col 56line fixed pitch format that
works smoothly with all of the _existing_ tools.
More information about the rfc-interest