[rfc-i] How "modern" word processors do it
touch at isi.edu
Sun May 27 11:03:42 PDT 2012
On May 27, 2012, at 12:31 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> It will not necessarily compile. Here's an example that fails:
>> The TCP Authentication Option (TCP-AO) uses a TCP option Kind value of TBD-IANA-KIND. The following sections describe TCP-AO and provide a review of TCP MD5 for comparison.
>> 4.1. Review of TCP MD5 Option
>> For review, the TCP MD5 option is shown in Figure 1.
>> In that case, you have:
>> <section title="Review of TCP MD5 Option">
>> That results in unbalanced sections.
> I think you mean a case where the intended output is
> 4. Outer section heading
> Some text.
> 4.1. Inner section heading
> Some more text.
4.1. Inner section heading
some more text
I.e.., grabbing the text without the outer section heading.
> Agreed, that is not necessarily portable. In some cases the human
> would have to insert an extra markup tag.
I eschew any solution that requires human editing of source code. For anyone who considers Word 20 years out of date, I consider editing source code for documents 30 years out of date.
> Exactly the same thing
> can arise in structured programming languages, for the same
> reason - break the structure, and the compiler complains.
Sure, but we're writing docs, not programming.
If writing an RFC rises to the level of programming, it's broken.
>> Word, BTW, never "doesn't compile" after a paste.
> Indeed. In that way, it's dangerous, like FORTRAN IV or assembly language.
> It doesn't complain about anomalies.
When it pastes, it resolves the anomalies between the pasted text and main doc. You can't generate a Word doc with non-compile (or non-interpret) anomalies from a paste.
You may need to adjust what it gives you as a result - which, as you note, you have to do anyway, but at least you're not stuck debugging code.
More information about the rfc-interest