[rfc-i] Better markup may get processed faster
touch at isi.edu
Tue May 29 10:25:02 PDT 2012
On 5/29/2012 10:09 AM, Joe Hildebrand wrote:
> On 5/29/12 10:45 AM, "Joe Touch"<touch at isi.edu> wrote:
>> Sure, but the delay for checking
>> grammar and spelling is a similar - but
> much more common (all docs need such
>> checks, vs. a subsetfor ABNF or code).
> Grammar and spelling can be checked by people with copy-editing skills.
It's often checked by automated tools.
> ABNF requires a skillet that is not as common in that population.
Sure, but it too is often checked by people, since the tools tell you
whether it's syntactically correct but cannot confirm it is semantically
> Think about the cost of the people involved.
Right. Checking the entire document for spelling and grammar vs. one
section that isn't in most RFCs.
>> Optimizing for these sorts of things
>> is a good way to end up with a
> system that is complex enough to result in
>> delays elsewhere too.
> (https://github.com/hildjj/node-abnf). It wasn't that complex.
Sure - which you can cut/paste into; you don't need markup to find the
ABNF in a doc.
> Could you give an example of the sorts of the delays you're worried about?
> I'm concerned that this might have been an off-the-cuff statement without
> any technical basis.
Ask the RFC Editor staff how much time they spend on grammer/spelling
issues vs. ABNF and code verification. ISI ran that position for many
years, in my division. I don't have detailed measurements, but I do know
they spent a lot more time on grammar/spelling than most other things.
More information about the rfc-interest