From walt@netcom.com Wed Aug 26 20:47:37 1992
Received: from netcom.netcom.com by dkuug.dk via EUnet with SMTP (5.64+/8+bit/IDA-1.2.8)
	id AA27152; Wed, 26 Aug 92 20:47:37 +0200
Received: by netcom.netcom.com (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA28579; Wed, 26 Aug 92 11:46:33 PDT
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 11:46:33 PDT
From: walt@netcom.com (Walt Brainerd)
Message-Id: <9208261846.AA28579@netcom.netcom.com>
To: SC22WG5@dkuug.dk
Subject: Processing Words, Part XIV
X-Charset: ASCII
X-Char-Esc: 29

|| To whatever extent they *wish* to. Clearly, if I write a proposal I
|| should be *able* to submit it in a form which the editors can easily
|| handle. It is in my interest to do so, as it means that I know
|| precisely how it will come out. It is in the Editors best interest
|| because it makes for less work.

Probably not.

I have been doing this for many years and have found that people who
ALMOST get things in the right form cause more work for the Editors
than those who just submit the text and let the Editor put it in the
right form.  I am not sure whether this would be better or worse with
Frame or Word.
|| 
|| >Maybe my question was not clear.  X3J3 has already developed "special
|| >tools", such as the one that generates Annex D.
|| 
|| Which is fine, if those who will be maintaining the plethoria of
|| planned documents wish to use troff.
|| 
This also has nothing to do with troff.  The question is: Will Frame, Word,
etc. allow the editors to generate Annex D with a reasonable amount of work?
I don't know; that is why I asked the question.

|| Picking the LCD, ASCII plus markup will make life equally difficult
|| for us all.

Not necessarily.  Other choices may make it easier for those who own the
tools selected, not necessarily "all".

I seem to be put in the position of defending TeX, troff, SGML, etc.
I am open to all suggestions and seek real information and debate.
But I must keep asking when I get answers that don't make any sense to me.