[rfc-i] Nobody uses Word, was Proposed new RFC submission requirements

[Phillip Hallam-Baker]

I think the test is irrelevant

Caveman format is really difficult to produce. I have had people complain
that it cost them $1000 to have a secretary produce a draft in that format.

The fact that Word is not suited for authoring a ridiculous obsolete format
is like saying that an iPod can't play 78 RPM records.

I think a lot of people are likely to use word if there is a reasonable
production chain and not if there isn't.


I write many early drafts of documents in Word because there is outlining.
Then I cut and paste into XML2RFC to produce caveman format.


On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 10:58 PM, Joe Touch <touch at isi.edu> wrote:

>
>
> On May 27, 2012, at 4:47 PM, "John R Levine" <johnl at taugh.com> wrote:
>
> >> Check the drafts collection for current usage.
> >
> > I went through and discarded multiple versions of drafts, leaving 10,064
> .txt files, of which 190 contain the Word tag.  That's 1.8%.
> >
> > So we've confirmed that Word users are an insigificant fraction of I-D
> authors.  I'm done.
>
> Zero use XML
>
> Or that's what a check would say. Oh, right, there's no such string for
> XML.  But the word string is optional too.
>
> First you complain it's just me, now it's at least dozens.
>
> Joe
>
> >
> > Regards,
> > John Levine, johnl at taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
> > "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.
> > _______________________________________________
> > rfc-interest mailing list
> > rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>



-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20120528/20cee877/attachment.htm>