W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > spec-prod@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: [rfc-i] IETF RFC format <-> W3C pubrules

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 10:14:09 +0200
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDAZBzq-b86VMO=_u1vjEmC8gGTD7UxWteLt_Mo1-vDpQQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Cc: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, rfc-interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>, "spec-prod@w3.org" <spec-prod@w3.org>
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 5:14 AM, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com> wrote:
> What I should have said was that, while there are different requirements from each organization, the intersection of requirements is likely to be substantial.  The requirements might be different enough that sharing tooling is impossible. But a discussion over requirements and an evaluation of requirements for tooling are interesting.
>
> The particular requirements I listed ("archivable, accessible, Unicode, hyperlinked, reliably printable, technical specifications, suitable for standardization") should not have been taken as definitive or accepted -- I don't think either group has consensus on requirements.

In contrast, I would assume that those particular requirements are
uncontroversial and widely accepted.  They don't set a very high bar,
but it's a very useful bar.  I honestly can't think of a reason why
anyone would object to any of those.

Asking for consistency in styles or shared toolchains or the like is
definitely a step further, and one that I don't believe is necessary
(but wouldn't object to).  We can discuss these sorts of things.  But
if we can't even agree that documents should be hyperlinked and
unicode, then I'm not sure how we can actually discuss anything.  That
would be a pretty fundamental disconnect.

~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 9 May 2012 08:15:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 08:23:32 GMT