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

[Ronald Tse <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jay,

Please find my replies inline. Thanks!

"AsciiDoc using Metanorma / AsciiRFC”

I’m happy to add the 'AsciiRFC' part but is there a reason you want the ' (formerly known as asciidoctor-rfc) ' removed?

Our original 'asciidoctor-rfc’ only generates XML RFC v2 (and the pre-release version of v3), and has been superseded by Metanorma for nearly 2 years.

Can we add an option like:

“I don’t know; my authoring tool seems to do that for me"

Unfortunately this doesn’t really make sense as an additional option for that question.  It’s a matrix question where people answer each of the options with one of

  • Always
    • Very often
    • Sometimes
    • Rarely
    • Never [Ensure this is scored as 0]

Also, I don’t understand how this benefits us as the respondents may or may not have a built-in checker they don’t know about - can you explain the thinking behind it?

I took the intent of this question as to gauge whether XML RFCs submitted were valid upon submission. If most submissions were not validated prior (e.g. authors like using the submission process for validation), then the RPC presumably needs more resourcing to reject invalid ones. On the other hand, if most submissions were already valid, resourcing is less of a concern.

For example, a typical Metanorma user may not be aware of the exact validation tools used mentioned in this question. One may put “Never” as they might not have ever heard of these validation tools. However, they do know that Metanorma helps them validate the file (by the output and warnings), but not sure what exactly that process entails.

Therefore the option of “I don’t know, my authoring tool seems to do that for me” rescues them from the “Never” bucket — otherwise the answers may be skewed.

Kind regards,
Ron