[rfc-i] Proposed new RFC submission requirements

Phillip Hallam-Baker hallam at gmail.com
Sat May 26 08:54:01 PDT 2012


I mostly mind that when there is an code section in (say) XML schema that
it is marked as such and can be extracted using tools.

As far as the round trip requirement goes, the point is that the production
process should not be lossy. It MUST be possible to take at least one
presentation format and convert that into an editable format.

I don't want to have to hunt down the editable source or spend time adding
back metadata that was thrown away.

On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 2:10 AM, Joe Hildebrand <jhildebr at cisco.com> wrote:

> On 5/25/12 11:47 PM, "Joe Touch" <touch at isi.edu> wrote:
>
> > If it requires denoting the full document structure, that's hard to
> > impossible, and not clear why that would/should be a requirement.
>
> Can you give a couple of reasons why you think this is "impossible"?   It
> seems pretty straightforward to me, so maybe you've thought of a problem I
> haven't, since I assume that you wouldn't use a word as strong as
> "impossible" without a really good reason.
>
> --
> Joe Hildebrand
>
>


-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20120526/9395abfe/attachment.htm>


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list