[rfc-i] next rev of the Format requirements draft has been posted

Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) jhildebr at cisco.com
Tue Nov 6 08:06:51 PST 2012


Overall, I'll note that the tools-generated HTML at
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rfc-format-flanagan-01 is a pretty good
indication of how text with no markup is difficult to parse correctly.  In
particular, the pagebreaks really aren't handled well in this case. I'm
sure it's "just a tooling issue", but it's illustrative.

S1.1:
- "ASCII" should point to US-ASCII.  See RFC 3987 for a good reference.
- "Metadata" is in there twice

S2.1, Metadata and tagging:
- "then having the ability to use metadata to provide an ASCII
"translation" of the
   UTF-8 letters is also a requirement": it's too early in the doc to use
the word "requirement", and the requirement doesn't necessarily follow
from the antecedent.  Can we please reword this?
- The main consumer of metadata is not humans, but post-processing
software such as search, notification, characterization, or statistical
tools.  That should be made more clear rather than focusing on the
translation use case.

S2.2, "Arguments against a markup language as the revisable format"
- "Having the publication format be in code instead of in a simple
text-formatting structure ties us in to specific tools and/or tool support
going forward": I've been trying not to nitpick on the arguments, but this
one doesn't make sense to me.  A standards-based and text-sourced markup
language does not imply tying us to specific tools.  "May require
use-specific tooling to optimize the authoring experience" would be
acceptable.

S3:
- "Plain-text printing" is not defined.
- "RFCs must not change, regardless of format, once published".  I'd say
the canonical format MUST NOT change, other formats MUST NOT change in
meaning, and new formats may be created that encoding the same meaning,
where the meaning of "meaning" is left to the RSE's discretion.
- "Graphics may include ASCII art and SVG line art" did you mean "SVG"
literally or figuratively?  Personally, I feel SVG may not be quite ready
for us to start to depend on, but we can do it if you're sure.
- "Fonts are restricted to fixed-width fonts".  I'm ok with this for
sections known to be ASCII-art or code samples (e.g.), but am strongly
opposed to this anywhere else for readability reasons.


On 10/18/12 5:45 PM, "Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)"
<rse at rfc-editor.org> wrote:

>Hi all -
>
>Noting that this is still a draft and still very much open for
>discussion, the next version of the Format requirements draft has been
>posted:
>
>http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-rfc-format-flanagan-01.txt
>
>I expect to incorporate further input as this is discussed on this list,
>in the BoF, and through any other feedback mechanisms available to me.
>
>Thank you for your time and attention!
>Heather Flanagan, RSE
>_______________________________________________
>rfc-interest mailing list
>rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
>https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>



-- 
Joe Hildebrand





More information about the rfc-interest mailing list