[rfc-i] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-flanagan-plaintext-00.txt
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Tue Jun 24 06:16:36 PDT 2014
On 2014-06-24 15:10, Thomas Clausen wrote:
> Well yes, it is easy (well, relatively) to come up with an alternative format that satisfies my workflow — or an alternative format that satisfies yours, for that matter. That’s not the point, however.
> The point of a specification is interoperability. In this case, the RFC format should be what ensures that you and I can interoperate on “a spec”.
> If for me to review (or implement) your spec, I’d have to know and/or adopt your workflow, formats and tools that go with it, then I foresee deep trouble.
> As Chris say in another post, not all of us can chose our tools all the time.
> I keep going back to this: how can I *precisely* point to what I want?
> If in my “alternative format" I spot a bug in “line 17 on page 33”, how do I convey that to you?
You send a link to the section, and quote the text excerpt you are
> Apparently, someone has decided to do away with both page numbers and fixed line lengths……so what, do I count characters (we still have characters, right?) from the beginning of the document?
> Do I hope that you have put a section anchor in that’s useful?
Section anchors will be autogenerated when not specified in the source.
> Do I need to convince you to either use my “alternative format” (burden on you, who should spend time fixing your protocol - and see the previous comment about “not all of us free to choose our tools all the time") or do I need to use your “alternative format” (burden on me, who kindly reviews your doc - and see “choose our tools all the time” comment, again).
> I think that the goals are noble, but I fear that we’re throwing out something that works for some pie-in-the-sky.
For all practical purposes, the "tool" you'll need is something that can
display HTML. I seriously believe that's not a big burden.
Best regards, Julian
More information about the rfc-interest