[rfc-i] Proposed new RFC submission requirements
touch at isi.edu
Fri May 25 23:40:28 PDT 2012
On May 25, 2012, at 11:30 PM, Joe Hildebrand wrote:
> On 5/26/12 12:16 AM, "Joe Touch" <touch at isi.edu> wrote:
>>> Can you give a couple of reasons why you think this is "impossible"?
>> Not all author formats keep the containment structure you expect. If they
>> don't, it cannot be extracted to be provided as an input format.
> Disagree. In my whiteboard thinking this afternoon, the algorithm seemed
> pretty straightforward. You hoist each root portion of the doc that
> shouldn't be at the root up to be a child of the section with the next lower
Here's the counterexample:
Is that one list of four items? Is it two lists of two items each? Where is the list container? Does the list belong to the paragraph that precedes it, or as a separate container belonging to the heading level?
>> E.g., Word doesn't use that structure.
> You post-process the output of Word anyway. Whoever writes the
> post-processing tool is going to have to write a few lines of code.
Some of it is easy - as you note, I can generate tags that contain sections within the headings that delimit them.
I cannot generate section containers for groupings that cannot be indicated by Word - as per the list above.
Further, why group all the paragraphs under one heading? At least one output from Word treats them as one long paragraph with BRs in between, rather than as individual paragraphs.
That isn't the same structure most people use when writing XML2RFC, but it is just as valid.
>> I could add it for heading sections
>> (it's easy to generate from nested navigation tags), but cannot generate it
>> for lists or other sections - there's no way to differentiate between a set of
>> paragraphs that are not related and ones that are, so there's no way to group
>> them in a container.
> I assume the sections are separated by a header, which has a depth
> associated with it? Everything between headers is in the same section.
But not necessarily the same container.
>> Again, except for editing, why does this matter? I have not seen a requirement
>> that drives the need for containment labels.
> I've given two.
You've only given the same reason repeatedly - editing. Support for editing was not given for any formats except authoring, which we all seem to agree ought to be up to authors.
More information about the rfc-interest