[rfc-i] Proposed new RFC submission requirements

Joe Touch touch at isi.edu
Sun May 27 00:04:37 PDT 2012


On May 27, 2012, at 12:00 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> 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.

By what, for what reason? You're all searching for a universal document format - the library science community has none, but you can do better?

>>> - 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.

Why is code checking done by anyone but the author?

Joe


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list