[rfc-i] For v3: remove <format>?
nico at cryptonector.com
Thu Dec 26 11:38:37 PST 2013
On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman at vpnc.org> wrote:
> On Dec 26, 2013, at 11:02 AM, Nico Williams <nico at cryptonector.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 8:14 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
>>> On 2013-12-24 08:28, Nico Williams wrote:
>>>> I'd like a way to link to different formats of the same referenced
>>> You can do that inside <annotation>.
>> This needs to be first-class.
> Why? I imagine that it is the reference, not the formats, that is important in the RFC.
Because some of the formats we'll render to (e.g., HTML, but also PDF)
will have clickable links, and it'd be nice to have (in superscript,
or in parenthesis) alternate format links for the same reference.
For example... references to RFCs! It'd be nice if the HTML rendering
of an RFC's references had clickable links to the canonical format
(today: .txt) of each referenced RFC and additional clickable links
for the HTML and PDF renderings of the referenced RFC.
The principle should be that as much meta-data as possible is
first-class, not buried in non-machine-parseable annotations. I
shouldn't need to come up with an example for this principle to be
applied. One should have to justify not following this principle. It
isn't an arbitrary principle; it's the reason that we have an XML
input format in the first place, and it's a reason we're trying to
improve the schema.
Even without a decent example like above, what if someone wanted to
analyze references, perhaps check to see what formats are most used at
various different times? With first-class format meta-data they could
that with trivial XSLT for all RFCs for which XML source is available.
More information about the rfc-interest