[rfc-i] Proposed new RFC submission requirements

Joe Touch touch at isi.edu
Sat May 26 09:10:26 PDT 2012


On May 26, 2012, at 8:51 AM, Joe Hildebrand wrote:

> 
> On 5/26/12 9:20 AM, "Joe Touch" <touch at isi.edu> wrote:
> 
>> On May 26, 2012, at 12:00 AM, Joe Hildebrand <jhildebr at cisco.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 5/26/12 12:40 AM, "Joe Touch" <touch at isi.edu> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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.
>>> 
>>> You can intuit a container (and add it if need-be) if the sections are
>>> separated.  I'd walk through the logic for it, but you haven't been
>>> interested in algorithms to this point.  Perhaps you could either care, or
>>> take my word for it?
>> 
>> If that's always true (an I don't think so - I gave an example that could need
>> other one list container or two),
> 
> An example that is impossible to generate with *your* tool.

Did you look at the lists here: http://isi.edu/touch/pubs/tcp-ao-html/

The list items are generated as paragraphs. There's a good reason - Word doesn't know or care that things are a "list", even when they're all the same paragraph type, even when they are bulleted.

There might be a way to override this, but I have no idea why anyone should care except the author.

>> then you can do this on a file submitted
>> without containers - or even on on output without them too.  So you've just
>> proven we don't ever need to put them in.
> 
> Sigh.  Which is why I originally agreed with you.
> 
>> Extraction is editing.
> 
> Now we're arguing over the meaning of words, in a place where the
> distinction doesn't matter, in order to try to push others around with
> rhetorical tricks.
> 
> I call foul.

You're adding your notion of editing operations as a requirement.

>> And you still haven't shown why extraction needs
>> structure except to copy text in one group without headers - and that is a
>> contrived academic example that you haven't shown the requirement for.
> 
> I love how "academic" is used as a pejorative here.
> 
> Another example: if I'm IANA, I'd like to be able to extract all of the
> "IANA Considerations" sections easily.

Why? Seriously, WHY?

Please let's not drive our requirements from what people MIGHT want to do.

> I don't understand why it's not obvious that a little more structure is a
> good thing, allowing us to start to use our documents in ways that haven't
> been possible in the past.

A little more structure is what got us SGML, which was dead in the water until HTML was developed *as a minimal starting subset*.

MINIMAL needs to drive this process. Not "add whatever anyone thinks someone ELSE *might* find useful".

Joe


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list