[rfc-i] RFC Heresies

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Wed Mar 28 01:38:52 PDT 2012

On 3/28/12 7:23 AM, Tim Bray wrote:

> 2. No, we don’t need metadata
> YAGNI.  Really.  Requiring metadata significantly increases the
> cognitive burden on authors without conferring any particular benefit
> on readers.  This argument has been going on for years and the
> proponents of metadata always talk about the magical wonderful things
> that will become possible once everything’s tagged and structured, and
> we never get to eat that cake. RDF died for a reason. The Semantic Web
> oops I mean “linked data” is languishing for a reason.  I find the
> existing corpus of RFCs to be nicely searchable as it stands.

With Larry's list of entities in mind, let's not forget that one user of
the format is the RFC Editor team. Perhaps they could let us know how
they consume the metadata in, say, the xml2rfc format (it at all).


Peter Saint-Andre

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list