[rfc-i] issue: canonical formats
touch at isi.edu
Fri Jun 1 09:49:38 PDT 2012
On 6/1/2012 7:55 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> Optional structure serves only one purpose AFAICT - support for future
>> editing, but the cost is more complexity in the archival format. Since
>> most revisions are rewrites (after the RFC is published), we should not
>> be trading stability and persistence for author convenience.
> How does including additional information affect stability and
> persistence negatively?
If it's hard to remove, it can get in the way of future conversion to
various outputs. If it's not hard to remove, it doesn't.
Everything we *require* in the structure limits the agility of authoring
and submission formats.
This is why I'd like to differentiate between minimum and optional
structure, and ensure that all optional structure *can* be removed by
More information about the rfc-interest