[rfc-i] Proposed new RFC submission requirements
touch at isi.edu
Thu May 24 13:53:00 PDT 2012
On 5/24/2012 11:37 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 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.
The requirement for text allows multiple author formats. Allowing the
current XML markup is an option because it allows xml2rfc-tools.
Forcing a particular markup has implications upstream for author tools.
The markup chosen should be as agnostic to those tools as possible, and
minimal to only those aspects the RFC Editor actually cares about.
I haven't seen a specific proposal for such a markup. I'll be glad to
see if there's a way to support it in a modern word processor (e.g., MS
Word) once there is.
More information about the rfc-interest