[rfc-i] Proposed new RFC submission requirements

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Sun May 27 00:20:28 PDT 2012


On 2012-05-27 09:04, Joe Touch wrote:
> ...
>> 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?

Because people get reference wrong all the time, and the easier it is to 
find those cases, the better. It saves elapsed time for document 
reviewers and the RFC Editor.

>>>> - 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?

(see above).

Have you ever shepherded a document? Did you check code and references?


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list