Re: [Tools-discuss] Updated survey (was: Proposed survey on I-D authoring tools)

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

Can we add: XMLMind with the xml2rfc-xxe plugin
to the "document format(s) and associated output process(es)" list?

This plugin was originally created by Billo, and I took over
maintenance many years back I don't know how many people still use it,
but there are howls of outrage everytime a new version of XMLMind
comes out and I don't release a new version in time.
This will at least help me know if it is still worth my time to rev
and post it...

W

On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 1:09 PM Jay Daley <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> The updated survey is below.  Please note that
>
> - this doesn’t show the links
> - I am still not sure how to point people to their Datatracker stats page
> - the flow logic may change when the survey is tested.
>
> Further feedback is most welcome.
>
> Jay
>
> # Question Plan
>
> [PAGE]
> Introduction
>
> [HELPTEXT]
> Thank you for taking part in this survey.  This survey has been sent to everyone who has authored an Internet-Draft (I-D) in the last five years and is open to anyone who has ever authored an I-D.
>
> We are hoping to understand what formats and tools you use to author I-Ds, from drafting to submission.
>
> In particular, we are hoping to find out more about the use (or non-use) of the v3 XML format for I-Ds, which became the publication format for RFCs on 16 September 2019.
>
> [QUESTION - Multiple Choice]
> Approximately, how many I-Ds have you authored in total (different I-Ds not versions of the same I-D)?
> If you need a reminder then your Datatracker page will have the details.
>         • 0
>         • 1-5
>         • 6-10
>         • 11-20
>         • 21-50
>         • 51+
>
> [QUESTION - Matrix/Rating Scale]
> Approximately, how many times have you submitted a draft (both a new draft and a new version) to the Datatracker?
> Items
>         • 0
>         • 1-10
>         • 11-20
>         • 21-50
>         • 50-100
>         • 101+
> Scale
>         • In total
>         • Last 2 years (Since September 2018)
>         • Last year (since September 2019)
>
> [QUESTION - Multiple Choice]
> How many RFCs have you authored?
>         • 0
>         • 1-5
>         • 6-10
>         • 11-20
>         • 21-50
>         • 51+
>
>
> [PAGE]
> Drafting to submission
>
> [LOGIC]
> Only get here if they have authored an I-D.
>
> [QUESTION - Matrix/Rating Scale]
> How often have you used the following document format(s) and associated output process(es) (editor/template/converter) when authoring an I-D? (Ignore any you don’t know about)
> Items
>         • Plain text using no markup
>         • Plain text using a different output process
>         • Markdown using the kramdown-rfc2629 converter
>         • Markdown using the mmark converter
>         • Markdown using the draftr converter
>         • Markdown using the Pandoc2rfc converter
>         • Markdown using a different output process
>         • XML using the xml2rfc-xxe editor plugin
>         • XML using xml2rfc to create plain text for submission
>         • XML using a different output process
>         • AsciiDoc using the metanorma-ietf (formerly known as asciidoctor-rfc) converter
>         • AsciiDoc using a different output process
>         • TeX / LaTeX using the lyx2rfc editor plugin
>         • TeX / LaTeX using a different output process
>         • nroff using the Nroff Edit editor
>         • nroff using nroff2xml template
>         • nroff using a different output process
>         • .doc/.docx using Joe Touch’s Word Template (RFC5385)
>         • .doc/.docx using a different output process (This means specifically using rich text styles that a template/convertor will recognise)
>         • Other format (Only use this option if you author in a different format to all of those above) [PLEASE SPECIFY what format you author in and what output process you use]
> Scale
>         • Always
>         • Very often
>         • Sometimes
>         • Rarely
>         • Never [Ensure this is scored as 0]
>
> [QUESTION - Comment Box]
> If you answered “a different output process” in the question above then please specify what it is?
>
> [QUESTION - Checkboxes]
> How did you choose the document format(s) and associated output process(es) that you use? (Check all that apply)
>         • I researched the tools
>         • I decided on my authoring format first and then chose a tool that uses that
>         • I saw a presentation on one of the tools at an IETF meeting
>         • Another author of my document chose for me
>         • The I-D I wanted to contribute to was already drafted in one of these tools
>         • Someone else helped me set up my tools
>         • Other [PLEASE SPECIFY]
>
> [QUESTION - Matrix/Rating Scale]
> How often have you used the following template(s) when drafting an I-D? (Ignore any you don’t know about)
> Items
>         • A copy of a previous I-D / RFC
>         • A template from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/templates/
>         • A template that came with my chosen authoring tool/process
>         • My own
>         • Other [PLEASE SPECIFY]
> Scale
>         • Always
>         • Very often
>         • Sometimes
>         • Rarely
>         • Never [Ensure this is scored as 0]
>
> [QUESTION - Matrix/Rating Scale]
> How often do you use the following checking tools? (Ignore any you don’t know about)
> Items
>         • I validate against the RelaxNG schema for the RFC XML in my XML editor
>         • Bill’s ABNF parser to check ABNF
>         • idnits to check a draft before submission
>         • idspell to check a draft for spelling errors
>         • pyang to check YANG modules
>         • RFC dependency checker
>         • rfcdiff to find diffs between versions of drafts
>         • SMICng to check MIBs
>         • smilint to check MIBs
>         • svgcheck to check a draft for SVG schema compliance
>         • xml2rfc validator to validate RFC XML
>         • YANG validator to check YANG modules
> Scale
>         • Always
>         • Very often
>         • Sometimes
>         • Rarely
>         • Never [Ensure this is scored as 0]
>
> [QUESTION - Matrix/Rating Scale]
> How often do you use the following conversion tools? (Ignore any you don’t know about)
> Items
>         • bibtext2rfc to convert bibtext citations into bibxml references
>         • bibxml2md to convert bibxml references into markdown
>         • Doublespace tool to change spacing between sentences to two spaces
>         • id2xml to convert a plain text I-D into XML
>         • rfc2629xslt to convert RFC XML to another format
>         • xml2rfc to convert RFC XML to another format
> Scale
>         • Always
>         • Very often
>         • Sometimes
>         • Rarely
>         • Never [Ensure this is scored as 0]
>
> [QUESTION - Checkboxes]
> How do you run your tools? (Check all that apply)
>         • Locally
>         • On a private hosted server
>         • On an IETF public web service
>         • On a third-party public web service
>         • Other [PLEASE SPECIFY]
>
> [QUESTION - Multiple Choice]
> Do you run an automated build process?
>         • Yes - I-D Template
>         • Yes - Using GitHub CI/CD
>         • Yes - Using Gitlab CI/CD
>         • Yes - Using Jenkins
>         • Yes - Using CircleCI
>         • Yes - Other [PLEASE SPECIFY]
>         • No
>
>
> [PAGE]
> XML v3
>
> [QUESTION - Multiple Choice]
> How do you rate your knowledge of the v3 official RFC/I-D XML format?
>         • Excellent
>         • Good
>         • Fair
>         • Poor
>         • None
>
> [QUESTION - Matrix/Rating Scale]
> How satisfied are you with the following characteristics of the v3 XML format?
> Items
>         • Ease of use
>         • Features
>         • Documentation
>         • Tools support
>         • Other [PLEASE SPECIFY]
> Scale
>         • Very satisfied
>         • Satisfied
>         • Neutral
>         • Dissatisfied
>         • Very dissatisfied
>         • N/A
>
> [QUESTION - Matrix/Rating Scale]
> How important are the following characteristics of the v3 XML format to you?
> Items
>         • Ease of use
>         • Features
>         • Documentation
>         • Tools support
>         • Other [PLEASE SPECIFY]
> Scale
>         • Very important
>         • Important
>         • Neutral
>         • Unimportant
>         • Very unimportant
>         • N/A
>
> [QUESTION - Comment Box]
> What more needs to be done to support the rollout of the v3 XML format?
>
>
> [PAGE]
> State of the current authoring tools landscape
>
> [QUESTION - Matrix/Rating Scale]
> How satisfied are you with the following characteristics of authoring tools?
> Items
>         • Ease of use
>         • Integration with IETF processes
>         • Support for the full range of tags / metadata
>         • Control of output
>         • Support of various output formats
>         • Integration with version control systems
>         • Speed at which new features are added
>         • Overall quality
>         • Choice of different tools
>         • Other [PLEASE SPECIFY]
> Scale
>         • Very satisfied
>         • Satisfied
>         • Neutral
>         • Dissatisfied
>         • Very dissatisfied
>         • N/A
>
> [QUESTION - Matrix/Rating Scale]
> How Important are the following characteristics of authoring tools to you?
> Items
>         • Ease of use
>         • Integration with IETF processes
>         • Support for the full range of tags / metadata
>         • Control of output
>         • Support of various output formats
>         • Integration with version control systems
>         • Speed at which new features are added
>         • Overall quality
>         • Choice of different tools
>         • Other [PLEASE SPECIFY]
> Scale
>         • Very important
>         • Important
>         • Neutral
>         • Not important
>         • Not at all important
>         • N/A
>
> [QUESTION - Multiple Choice]
> Should the IETF invest in a new, modern toolchain for authoring drafts?
>         • Strongly agree
>         • Agree
>         • Neutral
>         • Disagree
>         • Strongly disagree
>
> [QUESTION - Matrix/Rating Scale]
> How important is it for you for any new tool to support the following authoring formats?
> Items
>         • Plain text
>         • Markdown
>         • XML
>         • nroff
>         • AsciiDoc
>         • Some form of WYSIWYG (e.g. MS Word or LibreOffice)
>         • Other [PLEASE SPECIFY]
> Scale
>         • Very important
>         • Important
>         • Neutral
>         • Not important
>         • Not at all important
>         • N/A
>
> [QUESTION - Comment Box]
> Do you have any more feedback on authoring tools and formats?
>
> --
> Jay Daley
> IETF Executive Director
> [e-mail]
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> Tools-discuss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss
>
> Please report datatracker.ietf.org and mailarchive.ietf.org
> bugs at http://tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb
> or send email to [e-mail]
>
> Please report tools.ietf.org bugs at
> http://tools.ietf.org/tools/issues
> or send email to [e-mail]



--
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf