[rfc-i] Proposed new RFC submission requirements
"Martin J. Dürst"
duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
Tue May 29 04:06:20 PDT 2012
On 2012/05/26 7:49, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> * Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> Are other folks on this list happy with the proposal to require xml2rfc
>> as mandatory for the input format for RFC publishing? This would apply
>> to all the streams (Independent, IRTF, and IAB), not just IETF
> I think I am not okay with that, but the question is not specific enough
> to say for sure. For instance, I have found myself to use invalid markup
> because some formatting cannot be achieved using valid markup, and I've
> used large pre-formatted text sections to work around similar problems.
[I definitely have done quite a bit of this myself.]
Reading this, one thing occurred to me that I'm not sure anybody has
mentioned so far:
The fact that we currently have an infrastructure geared towards
production of a fixed format may mean that we spend too much energy
caring about exact output details, details I can't remember that I ever
had to care about for W3C specs. So it may be that if we moved to (some
reasonably clean and well-defined version of) HTML as the canonical
output format, the pressure/temptation to use these kinds of tricks and
workarounds may decrease if not disappear.
It would be good to know from you or others about concrete examples and
whether the problem would disappear or get diminished with more flexible
formatting as e.g. available in HMTL.
> To illustrate, when someone submits something akin to
> where the "..." is simply a .txt version as you would submit currently,
> is that using the xml2rfc format, even though it's not really marked up
> in any way? I think you would have largely follow the xml2rfc rules and
> features in order to be considered "using" it, and as it is, I think the
> xml2rfc format is not up for the task.
More information about the rfc-interest