[rfc-i] Pagination requirements

"Martin J. Dürst" duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
Thu May 24 23:59:20 PDT 2012


On 2012/05/25 5:39, Joe Hildebrand wrote:
> On 5/24/12 2:35 PM, "Joe Touch"<touch at isi.edu>  wrote:
>
>> On 5/24/2012 10:44 AM, Joe Hildebrand wrote:
>> ...
>>> One thing that would help this would be to edit HTML instead of xml2rfc's
>>> XML format.  The tooling would flow much more naturally.
>>
>> I haven't seen HTML editing "tools" that are anything but rudimentary;
>> editing in a full-scale word processor is more reasonable, but more
>> difficult to map to HTML markings.
>
> Although I somewhat agree with this statement, I'm not sure what to do about
> it.  I don't think we should pick a word processor's format as the one we
> use for submission.  If you're able to generate output with Word today, I
> bet someone can change the back-end of that to generate something else.

I'm personally extremely happy with Amaya (http://www.w3.org/Amaya/). 
It's free, and it has an unique combination of structural and WYSIWYG 
(or actually WYSIWYM - what you see is what you mean) editing (WYSIWYG 
for reflowing HTML doesn't exactly exist). It's not a product, and 
therefore it's sometimes a bit flaky, and I recommend frequent saving 
and reload if the display starts to look strange.

I haven't used it for editing IDs and RFCs, because it doesn't do 
generic XML, but I'm editing all my lecture notes/slides with it, as 
well as quite a bit of other stuff. Of course, YMMV.

Regards,   Martin.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list