[rfc-i] Number of submission formats
marc.blanchet at viagenie.ca
Fri Jan 18 10:44:32 PST 2013
Le 2013-01-18 à 13:28, Paul Hoffman a écrit :
> On Jan 18, 2013, at 10:02 AM, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) <rse at rfc-editor.org> wrote:
>> One of the areas we have struggled with is terminology. Is it possible
>> for you to phrase your suggestion using the terms defined in the draft?
> Current text in 1.1:
> Submission format = the format submitted to the RFC Editor for
> editorial revision and publication
> * Currently: formatted plain text (required), XML (optional),
> NROFF (optional)
> . . .
> Canonical format = the authorized, recognized, accepted, and archived
> version of the document
> * Currently: formatted plain text
> Proposed addition to 3.2:
> The Canonical format will be allowed as a Submission format.
> The Canonical format will be the new required Submission format.
By default, I'm strongly in favor of the latter. We have to think about a broader picture of the whole process effectiveness. And I have a hard time thinking that people who are in computer networks and many coding could not adapt to a new(to them) tool/document format/document editor/... that would be beneficial to the whole community. A single format from the source to the destination is just more efficient to everybody, authors, editors, wg chairs, iesg, rfc editor, etcc…. and a single format would enable us to have various tools around it with all the efficiency we want and need.
unless the canonical format is the APL language or something similar… ;-)
> Arguments in favor of the first would be "less political hassle than forcing the streams to adopt a new format for submission" and "many/most RFC authors will start using the canonical format for Internet Draft development anyway, so the RFC Editor will still get time savings". Arguments in favor of the second would be "the RFC Editor does not need to convert any Internet Draft before editing, and thus time will be saved and errors will be avoided" and "there will be less surprise during AUTH48".
> --Paul Hoffman
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest