[rfc-i] Better markup may get processed faster (was: Re: Proposed new RFC submission requirements)
"Martin J. Dürst"
duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
Tue May 29 02:18:43 PDT 2012
On 2012/05/28 11:47, Joe Touch wrote:
> On May 27, 2012, at 4:38 PM, Julian Reschke<julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
>> 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.
> Source formats should be up to the author.
> All formats may need to have components checked. That need not be native to the format.
Well, let's just do a little thought experiment, and let's assume that
there are two (source/input/submission) documents with (e.g.) ABNF in
it. In one document, the ABNF is clearly marked as such. In the other
document, the ABNF isn't marked up.
Let's for a moment abstract from why there is this difference. It may be
that one author's tool makes it easy to add this information, but the
other author's tool makes it difficult or impossible. It may also be
that one author cares about this, but the other does not care. Or it may
be a combination of these and potentially other reasons.
Now this document is being processed by fellow WG members, shepherds, WG
chairs, ADs, IESG members, the RFC Editor and maybe others. Some of them
will be checking the ABNF, either because that's what a checklist
instructs them to do, or because it's what they like to do anyway when
they look at a document. Obviously, with marked-up ABNF, a future
idnit-like tool would just spit out: "ABNF checked, okay" (or some
such). Without the necessary markup, the same tool might say "make sure
to check ABNF by hand".
Would it be acceptable if this lead to documents where ABNF is marked up
being processed faster than documents not having that markup? The delay
could range between a few minutes (the time it takes to do the manual
extraction/checking for a shepherd) and a few weeks (the time it takes
for a shepherd or somebody else to drop the ball because they were
annoyed at the document, or the author who couldn't care to add the markup).
More information about the rfc-interest