[rfc-i] Proposed new RFC submission requirements
touch at isi.edu
Sat May 26 08:35:02 PDT 2012
On May 26, 2012, at 2:20 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
> On 2012-05-26 07:47, Joe Touch wrote:
>> The key issue is "what is the required metadata".
>> If it's minimal, it should be easy for most author systems to support:
>> - title
>> - authors
>> - date
>> - RFC number
>> - RFC category and status
>> internal "jump" points:
>> - headings
>> - figure/table/example labels
>> - references
>> I'd really like to see what that is beyond the list I've shown here. I can see a good reason for metadata (supports document identification/location) and jump points (supports navigation based on "landmarks").
>> If it requires denoting the full document structure, that's hard to impossible, and not clear why that would/should be a requirement.
> - metadata of referenced documents; at least to the level that it's clear what is referenced in the case of IETF/W3C/... documents
Except for editing, why? This can be a hugely cumbersome requirement. If we provide urls, those might be marked/linked, which ought to be sufficient for navigation. There is no standard for all doc metadata, so this won't necessarily help automatic cross linking.
> - for code like ABNF: type information
Again, why? The heading that marks it, sure, but why any different from fig/table/example?
More information about the rfc-interest