[rfc-i] issue: canonical formats

Joe Touch 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 
automated means.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list