[rfc-i] Proposed new RFC submission requirements
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Thu May 24 11:50:14 PDT 2012
On 2012-05-24 20:37, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 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.
I like that at lot.
Best regards, Julian
PS: as long as we come up with a strategy to actually get some
maintenance on the format done :-)
More information about the rfc-interest