[rfc-i] Proposed new RFC submission requirements

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Thu May 24 11:37:41 PDT 2012


On 2012-05-24 19:10, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> Are other folks on this list happy with the proposal to require xml2rfc as mandatory for the input format for RFC publishing? This would apply to all the streams (Independent, IRTF, and IAB), not just IETF documents.

I've used numerous text markup languages over more decades than I
want to admit, and ultimately they are all as bad as one another.
XML2RFC with strict checking is probably more annoying than most,
in fact.

However, the fact is that the original authors can insert the
*intended* metadata and anyone else (or an algorithm) can
only guess the intention.

Therefore, I think it's reasonable to make a validated marked-up
file the recommended format, with formatted plain text as a less
welcome alternative.

That would loosely amount to inverting today's policy, which is
mandatory formatted plain text plus optional mark-up.

Such a change would be a no-op for most people but would gently
push the community towards providing mark-up.

    Brian

> My personal preference would be to make text the input format, with the expectation that the RFC Editor would continue to add the necessary markup (possibly starting from XML, if it is submitted) and produce the different formats. I am particularly concerned about making input to the RFC series harder fro the Independent Stream.
> 
> --Paul Hoffman
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
> 


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list