[rfc-i] Tools, was Pagination requirements

John R Levine johnl at taugh.com
Thu May 24 10:21:22 PDT 2012

> 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.

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.

John Levine, johnl at taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
"I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list