[rfc-i] Towards Consensus

Phillip Hallam-Baker hallam at gmail.com
Sat May 26 20:41:45 PDT 2012

Whatever the mechanism that is finally decided for publishing the documents
(data URIs, whatever) they are still going to incorporate multiple content
types and thus be compound documents from a practical point of view.

If you want to author such a document you are almost certainly going to
keep all the documents separate until your final build process.

Since tools to convert a Web page and associated documents to a single HTML
file with data: URIs do not currently exist, the simplest way to realize
such an interface today would be to tell someone to display the file in
their browser, save it as 'Web Page Complete' (the Chrome description) or
'html archive' or whatever and then submit the resulting file in the normal

These are still compound documents though since there is more than one
content type involved. If there is an ABNF portion that has to be
syntactically correct before it becomes an RFC.

I look forward to the day when instead of having the document shepherd
having to check all this stuff manually, the tools do that for them.

On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 11:21 PM, Joe Hildebrand <jhildebr at cisco.com> wrote:

> On 5/26/12 6:55 PM, "Phillip Hallam-Baker" <hallam at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I don't think there is much dispute as to the value of included source
> > files. Since the technical demands for images would be identical, can't
> we
> > just agree for the sake of argument that we are going to be dealing with
> a
> > compound document and defer the discussion of which ones we are going to
> > support?
> I'm not convinced of the need for compound documents yet.  data: works for
> images, inline CSS for styles, and source code can be easily extracted if
> it's marked up adequately.
> > We have had ABNF and XML Schema in RFCs for ages. It would be nice if we
> > had tools that could check syntax and nits for those as well as the main
> > text.
> +1
> --
> Joe Hildebrand

Website: http://hallambaker.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20120526/65f63a63/attachment.htm>

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list