[rfc-i] Proposed new RFC submission requirements

Tim Bray tbray at textuality.com
Fri May 25 11:02:31 PDT 2012

It’s probably worth saying that for a lot of us, the term “WYSIWYG” is sort
of a red flag, suggesting that the person who emits it is either clueless
or ill-informed.

People with a background in the paper publishing industry know that it was
always a lie; the equivalence between a <100dpi screen and a >1000dpi sheet
of paper was never remotely close.

For those of us with a background in the electronic-publishing
technologies, there have always been resizeable windows, and then when the
Web came along, it made WYSIWYG just a bad joke.  The advent of radical
variation in screen sizes has buried it deeper in history’s dumpster.

If you believe that what you see as you author is even a remote
approximation of the readers’ experiences, you’re deluding yourself in a
dangerous way. -Tim

On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 7:18 AM, Martin Rex <mrex at sap.com> wrote:

> Paul Hoffman wrote:
> >
> > Are other folks on this list happy with the proposal to require
> > xml2rfc as mandatory for the input format for RFC publishing?
> > This would apply to all the streams (Independent, IRTF, and IAB),
> > not just IETF documents.
> I am STRONGLY OPPOSED to that.
> Unless a royalty-free, portable, fully-integrated and "easy-to-use
> with no prior knowledge" wysiwyg tool for xml-based authoring
> equivalent to NRoffEdit for nroff-based I-D authoring is provided,
> I'm opposed to _NOT_ accept nroff-based I-Ds and RFC any longer.
> -Martin
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20120525/ee686155/attachment.htm>

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list