[rfc-i] Proposed new RFC submission requirements
jhildebr at cisco.com
Sun May 27 00:39:38 PDT 2012
On 5/27/12 1:03 AM, "Joe Touch" <touch at isi.edu> wrote:
>> Almost everything I do is an exercise in trying to attain good architecture.
> Yes, but thus us the real world, not an exercise. We use real tools here, not
> hypothetical future tools.
Yes. The real world is where I get to work.
> HTML is a language in which an architecture can be described. That hasn't
> happened yet.
Agree. If you'd let this thread drop (as I think I asked for quite a while
ago) I could go back to describing it.
>> Nor do I, but if we can get it, it will make a bunch of things easy that are
>> possible only with a lot of work today.
> Good luck with that hunt. If the rest of this group wants to follow you on
> that wild goose chase, please let us all know so those of us who actually want
> to focus on creating content, not arguing about the 'possible ways to denote
> content on the head of a pin".
Thank you for your good wishes. I also wish you well trying to build
consensus for whatever approach you come up with.
> Please provide the ISBN numbers for, e.g., www.google.com then.
I just did some reading on ISBNs. This:
leads me to believe that Google would have to get a new ISBN number every
time there was a substantial change to their site, which doesn't seem
useful. However, having an ISBN for an RFC seems completely in the spirit
of ISBNs. We might need a separate one for each format that we publish, if
we think ISBNs are really useful.
More information about the rfc-interest