[rfc-i] draft-flanagan-rfc-framework-02 composition tools

[mellon at fugue.com (Ted Lemon)]

On Nov 3, 2014, at 4:50 PM, Joe Touch <touch at isi.edu> wrote:
> I agree, but why do we want to use xml2rfc if it boxes us into things
> like this?

You saying this as if you were proposing some alternative that would box us in less.   But you haven't made a real proposition--all we have is that you think Word would work.   But we know that Word doesn't address a great many of the very definite requirements we have articulated; in particular, it would not be usable for some significant percentage of the IETF membership.

And it boxes us in far worse than xml2rfc does.    You said we should aim higher, but we *are* aiming higher than Word.   It just depends on what you mean by "higher."   You are putting usability for Microsoft Word users as the highest value, and trying to drag everything else through that wormhole, but first, that's not our user base, and second, usability for document editors is not the only or even the most important requirement for this solution.

So this is why you aren't getting the traction that you think you should be getting here: you are pushing a solution to the wrong problem.