On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 11:43, Ted Faber wrote:
I
request that the RFC editor will accept xml2rfc as an input format.
I thought they did take it as a supplement or something, which I hope
indicates that they are considering moving
On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 09:22:10AM -0800, Ted Faber wrote:
Getting anyone to change their authoring tool is difficult, so hoping
for standardization on CVS input is pretty unlikely. In my experience,
IETF contributors are an order of magnitude more stubborn than most
authors, but even if
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 09:13:33AM +0100, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 09:22:10AM -0800, Ted Faber wrote:
Getting anyone to change their authoring tool is difficult, so hoping
for standardization on CVS input is pretty unlikely. In my experience,
IETF
On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 12:29:51PM -0800, Bill Fenner wrote:
Straight revision control systems aren't actually that good for XML
that's been edited in an XML editor, since they tend to pretty-print
the XML when saving, and people using 2 different editors could end up
creating diffs on every
On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 09:45:00AM -0800, Ted Faber wrote:
WRT revision control software on I-Ds, I think it's an excellent idea,
but authors should use whatever they agree on. IMHO, the IETF doesn't
need to provide a system. CVS vs. RCS vs. subversion vs. $DIETY knows
what is too much of
On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 09:25:03AM +0100, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 09:45:00AM -0800, Ted Faber wrote:
WRT revision control software on I-Ds, I think it's an excellent idea,
but authors should use whatever they agree on. IMHO, the IETF doesn't
need to provide
In OASIS the de facto document markup during the preparation of the
documents is Word. The principle reason for this is that Word allows for
changes to the document to be highlighted.
The ability to see the differences to the document is critical if you
want people to read it thoroughly more than
At 01:43 PM 11/17/2005, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
In OASIS the de facto document markup during the preparation of the
documents is Word. The principle reason for this is that Word allows for
changes to the document to be highlighted.
The ability to see the differences to the document is
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
In OASIS the de facto document markup during the preparation of the
documents is Word. The principle reason for this is that Word allows for
changes to the document to be highlighted.
I tried and found that, if I modify figures there is no highlightning.
Even if
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 10:53:33AM -0500, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Bill
Fenner writes:
I've been pondering change tracking, in the context of copy-editing,
but I haven't come up with a complete thought yet.
CVS? Should the Secretariat make CVS archives
On 11/16/05, Ted Faber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think Bill was talking about making his editing plug-in display
changes to the document as change bars or whatnot.
Right, whatnot. In actual fact, what I have been thinking of was a
change-acceptance function for copy editing (show old, show
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Bill
Fenner writes:
On 11/14/05, Stewart Bryant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would not mind swapping from to an XML package
provided it supported change-tracking, embedded comments,
highlighting, WYSWYG display, edit time spell and edit time
grammer checking, and
Steven M. Bellovin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Bill
Fenner writes:
On 11/14/05, Stewart Bryant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would not mind swapping from to an XML package
provided it supported change-tracking, embedded comments,
highlighting, WYSWYG display, edit
I too use Subversion and rfcdiff and xml2rfc. But there are people
doing work (i.e. writing docs) in the IETF that do not work this way.
They may find using a version control system to be time-wise expensive
or prohibitive, especially compared to emailing track- change-docs back
and
On 11/14/05, Stewart Bryant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would not mind swapping from to an XML package
provided it supported change-tracking, embedded comments,
highlighting, WYSWYG display, edit time spell and edit time
grammer checking, and was a simple to install and maintain
on XP.
Is
On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 09:24:51AM -0800,
Hallam-Baker, Phillip [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 36 lines which said:
The problems with HTML are almost entirely the result of people
trying to give the author control over the final format which is
none of the author's beeswax.
BTW, does
On Nov 8, 2005, at 4:26 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
BTW, does anyone who knows IETF and the RFC-editor function better
than I do, can tell why RFC 2629 is not the mandatory official format
for RFC, even now after six years?
My guess is that it is not a trivial matter to convert RFCs
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 08:36:55AM -0500,
Andrew Newton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 14 lines which said:
My guess
You mean there is nowhere an official statement and we have to guess?
is that it is not a trivial matter to convert RFCs submitted in
other forms into 2629 xml
On Nov 8, 2005, at 9:25 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
You mean there is nowhere an official statement and we have to guess?
Not that I know of, but I could be wrong.
there are many people desiring some of the word processor features
(track changes, etc...) that are just not found in the
19 matches
Mail list logo
