[rfc-i] [Tools-discuss] Recommendation 9 from Results and analysis of the survey of I-D authors on formats and tools

John R Levine johnl at taugh.com
Sat Feb 6 18:41:53 PST 2021

In article <18192.1612647870 at localhost> you write:
>   I think that getting all this right in whatever markdown format would
>   take several iteration of tool improvements, and we have only just
>   gotten to XMLv3.

I completely agree, so I hope people keep working on tools. We can declare 
success if the tools get to the point that people could write and edit 
drafts all the way to RFC publication without anyone having to peek at the 
XML versions. (We can call that the MS Word standard.) I realize how very 
far we are from that point,

>   XMLv3 gets this all 'right' now, but I think that we aren't even close
>   to 100% submission as XML.

Speaking of tools that need work, we're still getting more submissions in 
XMLv2 than XMLv3.  While the RPC can mechanically convert v2 to v3, the 
semantics aren't identical and it leads to needless extra work to figure 
out what something was actually supposed to say or mean.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list