[rfc-i] Proposed new RFC submission requirements
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Mon May 28 03:31:09 PDT 2012
On 2012-05-28 12:17, Peter Sylvester wrote:
> As long as the transformation to whatever intermediate format insures
> reversibility of information and structure when I want to create
> a new version. It is not the author that should be required to keep
> the "original" piece of octets coded in an undocumented format.
> (the ambiguity in the previous sentence is intended). besides that
> newer versions of the well know tool to not necessarily work the same.
> I once used nroff, and during the rfc editing process the textual form got
> reverse engineered to produce another nroff which was not only the same
> and needed a lot of corrections.
It would be interesting to understand why that happened. Maybe because
the RFC production center actually uses a very limited subset of NROFF?
> One can argue whether one would like a sequence of annotated paragraphs
> counting list items and headings as annotated paragraphs with figures
> attached to I don't know where or whether one wants a
> hierarchical structure of the document information which may a bit more
> difficult to produce and to verify
> xml2rfc, yes, it is a bit painful concerning balanced structure
> browsers have the same problem with unbalanced html since they
> need to show something and the circumvention "heuristics" are not always
> the same (I think), so you don't get the same results (well, even for
They are the same with browsers that implement the HTML5 parsing algorithm.
> well-formed stuff).
Best regards, Julian
More information about the rfc-interest