[rfc-i] Proposed new RFC submission requirements

Joe Touch touch at isi.edu
Sun May 27 19:49:41 PDT 2012

On May 27, 2012, at 4:49 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:

> 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?

I've already made that clear - by adding a requirement with no discern able benefit vs cut/paste check of code and abnf,  that limits authors. 


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list