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

[Jay Daley <[e-mail]>]

> On 2/10/2020, at 5:03 AM, Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On 2020-10-01, at 16:51, Jay Daley <[e-mail]> 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
[e-mail]