[rfc-i] Proposed new RFC submission requirements
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Sun May 27 16:49:06 PDT 2012
On 2012-05-28 00:32, Joe Touch wrote:
> 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.
And exactly how does additional information that allows tools to do
their work negatively affect the publication format?
Best regards, Julian
More information about the rfc-interest