[rfc-i] issue: canonical formats

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Fri Jun 1 10:04:13 PDT 2012

On 2012-06-01 18:49, Joe Touch wrote:
> 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.

Why would it be hard to remove? Why would you *want* to remove it?

> Everything we *require* in the structure limits the agility of authoring
> and submission formats.

As far as I can tell, you are the only one concerned by that.

> 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.

If the structure is well-defined and parsers are available, it *will* be 
simple to remove. I just don't get why you *want* to remove it.

Best regards, Julian

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list