[rfc-i] Proposed new RFC submission requirements

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Sun May 27 16:38:29 PDT 2012


On 2012-05-27 20:15, Joe Touch wrote:
>
> On May 27, 2012, at 12:20 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> The format should be optimized for longevity first, utility of the output formats second, and flexibility of the author tools third.
>
> Your argument for saving effort on intermediate steps is like writing a compiler that runs very efficiently, but limits what programmers can write and generates terrible code.
> ...

My argument is for a source format that contains sufficient information 
so that the processor can issue warnings when needed *and* can generate 
the optimal code.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list