Re: Too many tools, was Things that used to be clear

["Stan Kalisch" <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Jul 12, 2019, at 11:07 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> 
> 
> On July 13, 2019 2:51:27 AM UTC, Joe Touch <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On Jul 12, 2019, at 7:09 PM, Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]>
> >wrote:
> >> 
> >> On Friday, July 12, 2019 9:46:52 PM EDT John Levine wrote:
> >>> In article <20190710190507.GI3215@localhost> you write:
> >>>> Yeah, it does seem lik the XML hate is mostly just that, but that
> >our
> >>>> use of XML is not really a blocker. But these are feelings we're
> >>>> talking about -- all subjective.
> >>> 
> >>> I think the practical difference is between a toolset that is unique
> >>> to the IETF and one that is more widely used.
> >>> 
> >>> It is utterly unclear to me whether better bridge tools would help. 
> >I
> >>> am pretty sure that with enough effort I could write a two-way
> >>> converter between xml2rfc and a Microsoft Word file with suitable
> >>> stylesheets and macros. (It'd be a lot harder than what Joe has
> >>> done.) So you could edit stuff in Word, and revise by importing
> >>> xml2rfc into Word and then exporting when you're done. But would
> >>> anyone use it?
> >> 
> >> Certainly not those of us using operating systems for which Word is
> >not 
> >> relevant.
> >
> >Which OSes are those? (LibreOffice works on Linux, MacOS, and Windows,
> >e.g.)
> 
> That's true, but may or may not be relevant. There are plenty of ways to make such things that only work in Word.

It's also worth noting that Word has a history of contemporaneous versions for different OSes sometimes rendering documents differently.


Stan