[rfc-i] Proposed new RFC submission requirements

Martin Rex mrex at sap.com
Fri May 25 02:19:51 PDT 2012

Paul Hoffman wrote:
> [ Changing the subject line for this. ]

[Thanks.  Reusing your thread for a reply to Joe]

> Joe Hildebrand wrote:
>> The important question is what MUST be submitted to the RFC editor in order
>> to enable her to generate all of these formats.  I would suggest that the
>> lineprinter format does not have enough tagging of content to make the
>> generation easy enough.  The two formats that we have that could be made to
>> work are xml2rfc and HTML, afaict.

I strongly believe that the structure of the content of I-Ds and RFCs
should be (for the large majority of them, at least) remain sufficiently
clear that the current "line printer format" (pre-paginated ASCII) will
remain an acceptable submission format _and_ sufficient for deriving
HTML-enriched versions of it.

For the simple reason that B&W-printouts as well as informationed rendered
through accessibility enhancements will not repro the meta-data either,
and it is extremely desirable that the lack of the meta-data will
NOT impair clarity/understanding of the document and not adversely
affect implementations based e.g. on the printout.

For me, the type face, non-ASCII glyphs for demonstrations purposes
images and meta-data markings are first of all eye-candy.
Embedded links that enable a browser to navigate between different portions
of the same document or different specifications facilitate online navigation.

But it is absolutely essentials that any such cross-references continue
to work in printouts (=offline).  And _when_ they work in printouts,
then converting cross-references in clickable cross-references work
just fine for plain ASCII printouts, as can be seen with rfcmarkup
on tools.ietf.org.

Personally, I believe that meta-data in the authoring format can
significantly impair authoring (it certainly does for me), where as
"implied meta-data" that can be easily recognized (e.g. by rfcmarkup)
that works both online and offline, does not impair the authoring process.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list