Re: [Tools-discuss] [rfc-i] Proposed survey on I-D authoring tools

Jay Daley <jay@ietf.org> Thu, 01 October 2020 16:56 UTC

Return-Path: <jay@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D7F83A110C for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 09:56:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tSarU5boufV3; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 09:56:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jays-mbp.localdomain (unknown [158.140.230.105]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 210763A0AE7; Thu, 1 Oct 2020 09:56:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jay Daley <jay@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <6F989ED3-4CD5-4E46-A410-965DA76E3F58@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_47B12049-4A2C-44CF-86CD-4C5C9C2CD966"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\))
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2020 05:56:38 +1300
In-Reply-To: <68CF84A2-7B5F-42A4-B4B7-B68C875591FA@tzi.org>
Cc: RFC Interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>, Tools Discussion <tools-discuss@ietf.org>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
References: <71CCD4C4-2CBA-4AD3-A254-2F19B261D882@ietf.org> <m2lfgqq2ww.wl-randy@psg.com> <1071F4D3-3F36-4012-9CBB-19DDDE6D0564@ietf.org> <m2h7req25a.wl-randy@psg.com> <9F1ABBE7-DC90-4C3C-8493-E89243C73C4C@ietf.org> <m24knepwg4.wl-randy@psg.com> <A62BA403-01EC-4142-A91C-6E675C1E1942@ietf.org> <19017.1601561002@localhost> <4B2B4A68-AC82-4455-A9D1-30F3789038F9@ietf.org> <68CF84A2-7B5F-42A4-B4B7-B68C875591FA@tzi.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-discuss/6nsD3DyMSFNkIl87LL_Ax0rJTno>
Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] [rfc-i] Proposed survey on I-D authoring tools
X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion <tools-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tools-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:tools-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2020 16:56:44 -0000


> On 2/10/2020, at 5:03 AM, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
> 
> On 2020-10-01, at 16:51, Jay Daley <jay@ietf.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Is there an RFC2629-specific editing mode?  If so then I want to capture that.  If all they are doing is using something like the RelaxNG schema to validate against then that should be captured (I may need to add the RelaxNG schema to the list of other tools).
> 
> When I was still using XML, I used emacs’ nxml-mode with the rfc2629.rnc schema (*).

Great.  I will add the RelaxNG schema to the list of additional validation tools.

> I would expect most emacs-proficient users to arrive there.
> This is not just about validating, but also being able to choose from valid next steps.  (Unfortunately, nxml-mode never became quite as efficient for keyboarding XML as previous SGML-modes were.)
> 
> Basically, you should orthogonalize:
> 
> — the authoring format (nroff, RFCXML, markdown, asciidoc, …)
> - the tool used for editing that authoring format
> 
> Many of us have been using several tools on a common format.
> (Much initial use of kramdown-rfc was to generate the tedious XML right from markdown keyboarding, BTW.  !}kramdown-rfc RET, if you use vi.)

If we did ask it that way then we lose the important data of what format goes with what output process and it also gives us a lot of unnecessary noise about what editors people use.

In the end, this is not going to be a perfect survey as there are too many variable and too many unknowns.  

Jay

> 
> Grüße, Carsten
> 
> (*) Actually, a slightly hacked one, but that was 2009, and I don’t remember the details.
> 

-- 
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director
jay@ietf.org