[rfc-i] RFC Style guide

Glenn Kowack Glenn at RiverOnce.com
Fri Jan 28 09:08:59 PST 2011


On Jan 27, 2011, at 5:00 PM, Bob Brade wrote:

> On 1/19/2011 12:06 PM, Glenn Kowack wrote:
>> Peter,
>>     revising, reorganizing, and updating the Style Guide (along with the Procedures
>> Manual) is called out as a priority in the TRSE (transitional RFC Series Editor)
>> recommendations.  I also call out that 1) I'd like to see greater participation by
>> the community in creating the style guide and 2) it may be useful to have two
>> parts to the style guide: a) consisting of a small set of 'musts' that are enforced
>> by the Editorial (RPC) staff, and b) a large set of guidelines, examples,  and
>> recommendations.
> Glenn,
> 
> Regarding the RFC Editor as of a year ago (I have not looked at it since), it did attempt to make clear what were requirements and what were recommendations. Making it two separate documents seems to me not only overkill but also creating undesirable rigidity.

Noted.  Any split would have to be well-motivated, for exactly the reasons you state.
The arguments I've heard include that the 'MUSTs' (2a) above would change very
slowly, and (2b) above could be added to regularly.  Having two parts of the guide
with very different rhythms could potentially justify separate docs.  I think this will
all come out in the wash when people dive into the actual work.

>>   The former will be very slow in changing and intentionally
>> small; the latter will probably change with greater frequency and have more
>> active community participation in its creation than would (a).
>> 
>> Publishing the Style Guide as an RFC is an excellent idea. I'd like to see a
>> discussion about that here, starting with:
>> 
>> 	- why should the Style Guide be an RFC?
>> 	- are there any reasons why the Style Guide should not be?
> Yes, there are (or were) reasons, else the former RSE would have published it as an RFC. The style guidelines were changing fairly rapidly, so we decided that the Style Guide should be a "living document" for ease of maintenance and currency. And the RFC Editor could not reasonably be accused of opposing use of the RFC process.
> 
> Perhaps the style has stabilized since then, which might weaken this argument for the future.

See note above: division might support this as well.

> It has always been readily and immediately available ('one click away") on the RFC Editor web site. Why isn't a URL good enough in today's world?

Some of the things I heard from community members is that the style guide
has various part under multiple URLs. There's also the issue of persistence
of reference.  Some think URLs less stable (rightly or wrongly). Some want 
a more fixed object to refer to, and being part of an archival series would
certainly do that.

-Glenn
__


> Bob Braden
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list