[rfc-i] Proposed new RFC submission requirements
touch at isi.edu
Sun May 27 15:32:03 PDT 2012
On May 27, 2012, at 11:36 AM, Joe Hildebrand <jhildebr at cisco.com> wrote:
> On 5/27/12 12:15 PM, "Joe Touch" <touch at isi.edu> wrote:
>> The format should be optimized for longevity first, utility of the output
>> formats second, and flexibility of the author tools third.
> I agree with this, so I'm not sure why benefits to the utility of the output
> formats are something you keep arguing against.
>>> Have you ever shepherded a document? Did you check code and references?
>> Yeah, but I didn't expect the tools to optimize that effort.
> Dream bigger?
Tools are fine but checking tools - or any such few- time uses shouldn't be driving this process. They're 'compile time', vs the frequency on read-time (runtime equiv) operations.
> Joe Hildebrand
More information about the rfc-interest