[rfc-i] Proposed new RFC submission requirements

Phillip Hallam-Baker hallam at gmail.com
Fri May 25 09:10:18 PDT 2012


It took 30 years to do that, so not exactly compelling evidence.

3000 people have climbed Everest, that does not mean that the mountain
didn't 'hinder' them. 225 people died trying for a start.

On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at stpeter.im>wrote:

> On 5/25/12 8:33 AM, Martin Rex wrote:
> > Paul Hoffman wrote:
> >>
> >> If the RFC Editor's only decision criteria is "what would make my life
> >> easier", they should prefer to have only one submission format.
> >> If they have other criteria such as "we want to make publication in
> >> the RFC series available to authors who don't want to learn XML",
> >> they might prefer to have something easier (for the author) as well.
> >
> > Since the RFC Editor is _not_ the author of most of the documents
> > that are to be published as RFC, it will be essential that the
> > submission format can be automatically generated from
> > easy-to-use authoring formats.
>
> The lack of easy-to-use authoring formats doesn't seem to have hindered
> publication of 6500+ RFCs so far.
>
> Peter
>
> --
> Peter Saint-Andre
> https://stpeter.im/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>



-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20120525/c17db852/attachment.htm>


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list