[rfc-i] Proposed new RFC submission requirements

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Sun May 27 00:00:23 PDT 2012


On 2012-05-26 17:35, Joe Touch wrote:
>
>
> 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:
>>>     metadata:
>>>     - 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.
>>>
>>> Joe
>>
>> - 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.

It allows checking the references automatically in a more reliable way.

>> - for code like ABNF: type information
>
> Again, why? The heading that marks it, sure, but why any different from fig/table/example?

It allows checking code in a more reliable way.

Best regards, Julian



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list