[rfc-i] Towards Consensus

Joe Hildebrand jhildebr at cisco.com
Sat May 26 20:51:00 PDT 2012


On 5/26/12 9:41 PM, "Phillip Hallam-Baker" <hallam at gmail.com> wrote:

> Whatever the mechanism that is finally decided for publishing the documents
> (data URIs, whatever) they are still going to incorporate multiple content
> types and thus be compound documents from a practical point of view.

Sure, I agree with that.  I'm just hoping that extra complexity of HTML
isn't required.

> If you want to author such a document you are almost certainly going to
> keep all the documents separate until your final build process.

Agree with that, too.

> Since tools to convert a Web page and associated documents to a single HTML
> file with data: URIs do not currently exist,

Well, they do.  And they weren't hard to write.

> the simplest way to realize
> such an interface today would be to tell someone to display the file in
> their browser, save it as 'Web Page Complete' (the Chrome description) or
> 'html archive' or whatever and then submit the resulting file in the normal
> way.

Yes, that's one way.  I bet we're going to need some tooling anyway, to
ensure a bunch of other stuff is in the doc correctly (e.g. table of
contents).  As such, also having the tool inline images doesn't seem too
bad.

> These are still compound documents though since there is more than one
> content type involved. If there is an ABNF portion that has to be
> syntactically correct before it becomes an RFC.
> 
> I look forward to the day when instead of having the document shepherd
> having to check all this stuff manually, the tools do that for them.

+1

-- 
Joe Hildebrand



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list