hallam at gmail.com
Thu Jul 12 12:01:20 PDT 2012
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)
<jhildebr at cisco.com> wrote:
> On 7/12/12 9:48 AM, "Joe Touch" <touch at isi.edu> wrote:
>>I would consider anyone for whom this isn't painfully obvious to be
>>unqualified to develop a solution, frankly.
> We've all been trying to exercise restraint from making this kind of
> argument, since it's a community-killer.
> Can you please continue to keep the assumption that everyone in the
> discussion has something to offer?
I am reminded of Tolkien being asked about his choice of plural for
dwarf, he used dwarves where the OED used dwarfs at the time. His
response to the journalist/nit picker was, dear boy, I wrote the OED.
Since none of us has been managing digital documents for 100 years, it
follows that none of us can claim absolute knowledge of the problem.
Moreover, I think that people are going to discover that the process
of curating digital documents in network accessible form is very
different from the problem of curating mag tapes which in turn was
very different from curating physical books and objects. I don't think
curation of online documents should be considered a passive activity
of preserving bits.
But I am very sure that any document that verifies as compliant with
an issued version of the W3C standard for HTML is going to be readable
for the foreseeable future of human history. If we loose that
capability then we have a lot more to worry about than the need to
read old RFCs. Planning for such an eventuality is like planning for
cooperation with our new insect overlords.
More information about the rfc-interest