[rfc-i] Proposed new RFC submission requirements

Joe Touch touch at isi.edu
Sat May 26 19:39:19 PDT 2012

On May 26, 2012, at 7:06 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:

> Code is different from text in many ways:
> * it is executable
> * it should conform to a syntax
> * it should be semantically correct
> I have for many years used tools that automate the production of
> examples to ensure consistency.
> It seems to me that we could save quite a bit of WG time if more
> people had access to this type of tool and if we had tools that could
> extract all the code sections from a draft and submit them to
> appropriate validation tools.

Few code examples are sufficiently self-contained that such validation is meaningful. I.e., they lack variable declarations, typically.

If validation of code in a *draft* is important, that can be done in the author's source. Once it's submitted, such checks should already have been completed.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list