[rfc-i] Proposed new RFC submission requirements
hallam at gmail.com
Sat May 26 19:06:52 PDT 2012
Code is different from text in many ways:
* it is executable
* it should conform to a syntax
* it should be semantically correct
I have for many years used tools that automate the production of
examples to ensure consistency.
It seems to me that we could save quite a bit of WG time if more
people had access to this type of tool and if we had tools that could
extract all the code sections from a draft and submit them to
appropriate validation tools.
I am quite happy to share this toolchain BTW.
I don't use XML schema either. Its kinda junk. I have generated the
schema from another format that is less baroque.
On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Russ Housley <housley at vigilsec.com> wrote:
>>> - for code like ABNF: type information
>> Again, why? The heading that marks it, sure, but why any different from fig/table/example?
> Code can be extracted from an I-D or RFC under a different license than text. Clear differentiation of code and text would be very helpful.
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest