[rfc-i] Proposed new RFC submission requirements
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:
>>> - 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.
>> - 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