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

[Jay Daley <[e-mail]>]

It was on there with pretty much that wording but in response to feedback I changed it to just "XML using the xml2rfc-xxe editor plugin" - does that work or should I revert? 

> On 2/10/2020, at 9:17 AM, Warren Kumari <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 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
> 

-- 
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director
[e-mail]