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

Having used MS Word on some large I-Ds I have to say that I am getting 
tired of the assertion that the only folks for whom Word won't work are 
the one Joe cites below.  In one case, we found using Word so unweildy 
that we hand-converted it into XML.

I am not asking the Joe Touch stop using Word.  But the assertions that 
it is workable for the bulk of us make assumptions that are not 
supported by the evidence.

If the request is that we plan for conversion tools to permit authoring 
in MS Word, with the understanding that it will be less effective since 
there is no way to capture the original metadata cleanly in MS Word, but 
instead the tools must guess the values, I could see us including that 
in the migration plans.

Yours,
Joel

On 11/3/14, 7:29 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
>
>
> On 11/3/2014 2:54 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I want a solution for which Word can be used as an authoring tool.
> Support for authoring tools hasn't been a key factor in the progress to
> date.
>
>> 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.
>
> The percentage of the IETF that does not use Windows, MacOS, or Linux,
> agreed.
>
>> 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.
>
> I have seen a lot of requirements driven from the need for automatic
> extraction of document structure or contents, but have not seen a good
> rationale as to the need to do that from documents.
>
>> 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.
>
> The problem is DOCUMENTATION.
>
> This isn't a programming project.
>
> Joe
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>