[rfc-i] issue: canonical formats

Joe Touch touch at isi.edu
Fri Jun 1 10:13:13 PDT 2012

On 6/1/2012 10:04 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> 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?

Removing it might make the resulting file not 'compile' (a frequent 
problem with xml2rfc edits, in my experience).

 > Why would you *want* to remove it?

It might interfere with an output I want to generate.

>> 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.

I agree. This list is headed towards forcing a specific authoring 
system, esp. one that this community needs to develop - perhaps there 
are too many on this list who would prefer to create a new publishing 
paradigm as a research project.

I'll note that we didn't create nroff, nor do we force authors to write 
in it.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list