[rfc-i] IETF RFC format <-> W3C pubrules

Phillip Hallam-Baker hallam at gmail.com
Wed May 9 04:12:08 PDT 2012


I note that as is often the case when the blatantly obvious is said we
have disagreement by unresolved reference.

If you can't give a reason for a disagreement then you should probably
think a bit before posting and wait until you can state what the
disagreement is.

We have two standards bodies here. What is the reason to NOT have a
common standard?


BTW the only 'tools' I needed to produce W3C docs was the bit of code
to rip out the style crud produced by Microsoft Word and another that
produced the index.

I used the same tools to produce W3C and OASIS docs.


On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 10:55 PM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman at vpnc.org> wrote:
> On May 8, 2012, at 7:45 PM, Larry Masinter wrote:
>
>> I think there are a common set of requirements for archivable, accessible, Unicode, hyperlinked, reliably printable technical specifications suitable for standardization, as well as some unique requirements of each organization in order to deal with differing legacy, audiences, and compatibility requirements.
>
> For the folks on spec-prod: note that Larry started that sentence with "I think that...". There are some people on the rfc-interest list who agree with him about the requirements, and some who do not. I propose that you don't assume that Larry is right, and I don't propose that you ask the IETF what your requirements should be.
>
> --Paul Hoffman
>
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest



-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list