[rfc-i] Proposed new RFC submission requirements

Joe Touch touch at isi.edu
Sat May 26 09:15:02 PDT 2012

On May 26, 2012, at 8:54 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:

> I mostly mind that when there is an code section in (say) XML schema that it is marked as such and can be extracted using tools.

Why is that even remotely *necessary*?

> As far as the round trip requirement goes, the point is that the production process should not be lossy.

Here we go. So no more txt output.

Unless the author format IS the output format, this is impossible.

> It MUST be possible to take at least one presentation format and convert that into an editable format.

I don't accept that as a requirement AT ALL. The only time that's necessary is for -bis docs, and IMO they should be rewritten from scratch mostly anyway.

> > If it requires denoting the full document structure, that's hard to
> > impossible, and not clear why that would/should be a requirement.
> Can you give a couple of reasons why you think this is "impossible"?   It
> seems pretty straightforward to me, so maybe you've thought of a problem I
> haven't, since I assume that you wouldn't use a word as strong as
> "impossible" without a really good reason.

I looked at the output of Word - unless we accept its native XML variant as a submission format, it won't work. You lose information once you go to HTML - even "complex" HTML - from Word's native XML.

Take a look at the source of the example I gave. It has lists all over the place, and they NEVER use the list modifier; they're just paragraphs of a particular type. Why is retaining that information critical?


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list