[rfc-i] Proposed new RFC submission requirements

Joe Touch touch at isi.edu
Sun May 27 00:03:19 PDT 2012

On May 26, 2012, at 11:41 PM, Joe Hildebrand wrote:
> Almost everything I do is an exercise in trying to attain good architecture.

Yes, but thus us the real world, not an exercise. We use real tools here, not hypothetical future tools.

> Every day.  I'm not going to stop because you don't value it.
>> If you want to create a new publication architecture, by all means please do.
>> We should consider it for RFCs after it's been widely used for around 10-15
>> years.
> Done.  HTML.  Let's consider it.

HTML is a language in which an architecture can be described. That hasn't happened yet.

>> No, I don't think "information extraction" is the primary purpose of going to
>> the new format. 
> Nor do I, but if we can get it, it will make a bunch of things easy that are
> possible only with a lot of work today.

Good luck with that hunt. If the rest of this group wants to follow you on that wild goose chase, please let us all know so those of us who actually want to focus on creating content, not arguing about the 'possible ways to denote content on the head of a pin".

>> If it is, call me when the publishing community converges on a
>> format for that.
> They have.  It's HTML.  The "publishing community" is now the called "the
> web".

Please provide the ISBN numbers for, e.g., www.google.com then.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list