Re: [Tools-discuss] Results and analysis of the survey of I-D authors on formats and tools

["STARK, BARBARA H" <[e-mail]>]

In looking through the survey results and reading through the comments on the tools-discuss list (which I just now joined to participate in this conversation), I think it would be useful to know how many of the people who use one of the 2 markdown formats prefer using markdown over all other formats. 

I nearly wept with tears of joy when Carsten helped me switch a draft from XML to MD and I no longer had to do battle with XML for it. It was so, so much easier. I'm just always forgetting to put in the closing XML tags. And finding those can sometimes be challenging and frustrating for me. And I'm always looking up the more obscure tags. The kramdown conventions were so much easier to learn/remember. I'm wondering what people who have been primary author on fewer than 5 XML-written drafts would prefer if they were to try MD. The people with extensive XML drafting experience are a group of people I have no wish to join, now that I've seen the MD light. 

I'm also one of the people who participates in a lot of other orgs and thought my IETF experience was worse. But that wasn't because the others use MS Word. 2 of them use (Pandoc-suitable) MD. If the IETF MD format(s) had a centralized place to go for getting tools and templates and instructions (rather than going to Martin's GH and Carsten's GH and Lars' GH etc.) and MD was "officially" supported, then I'd be happy. Even if the centralized IETF place just had links to their GH sites or was a mirror. But with somewhat improved instructions.

And I don't care about what flavor of MD -- I use Atlassian, GH, Pandoc, kramdown, etc. Whatever. As long as it's documented.

Barbara