[rfc-i] Tools, was Pagination requirements

Joe Touch touch at isi.edu
Thu May 24 10:29:45 PDT 2012



On 5/24/2012 10:21 AM, John R Levine wrote:
>> I heard such claims for xml2rfc, and tried it about 4 times
>> periodically since that was introduced. None were even close to what
>> modern doc editing systems have been doing for 25 years.
>
> This is the underwear theory of software tools, you like what you're
> used to, or perhaps the totalitarian underwear theory, you must like
> what I am used to.

It's no more that theory than "I want to use a modern printer" instead 
of a teletype.

The argument for some in this thread is "let's be more modern". I find 
that hard to understand when it is coupled with "and let's continue to 
edit the source code of a document" rather than WYSIWYG.

> I have used Word on and off since it ran on MS-DOS, and find it klunky,
> buggy, and condescending (oh, here, we know better than you do what you
> want so we'll silently change it.) Nonetheless, for some reason there
> seem to be many people who like it.
>
> So while I think it would be reasonable to ensure that it's possible to
> edit drafts in Word, it would be nuts to expect that people use Word or
> anything like it.

I don't expect everyone to edit in Word or something like it.

Please don't expect me or others to edit using VI or something like it 
either.

If we have a canonical format that allows a variety of source formats, 
and at least one is WYSIWYG (including showing me the section numbers, 
and allowing me to drag/drop hierarchies of document components), that's 
fine.

Joe



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list