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

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

From: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 06:34:19 -0700
To: "julian.reschke@gmx.de" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
CC: rfc-interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, "spec-prod@w3.org" <spec-prod@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D23D6B9E57D654429A9AB6918CACEAA9C20FC391C9@NAMBX02.corp.adobe.com>
You need it in the RFC (aka the published document) if you want it to be archived - since in that context, the property of "completely stand-alone" applies.  


-----Original Message-----
From: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org [mailto:rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org] On Behalf Of Julian Reschke
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 9:29 AM
To: Paul E. Jones
Cc: rfc-interest; Paul Hoffman; spec-prod@w3.org
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] IETF RFC format <-> W3C pubrules

On 2012-05-09 15:19, Paul E. Jones wrote:
> On 5/9/2012 9:11 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>>> ...which means: little metadata or no metadata to rely on, right?
>>> I am not sure quite what you mean there.
>> A way to programatically extract all the information xml2rfc captures 
>> for us, such as author names, WG information, "updates"/"obsoletes"
>> information, references, ABNF, copyright status, ...
> The RFC Editor publishes all of this metadata as an XML document that 
> is independent of any RFC. Why would we need to have this information 
> inside the RFC itself? And if we did, some information would still be

We don't need it in the RFC, but it's useful to have. It allows you to run checks *before* the RFC is published. For the same reason it's useful in Internet Drafts.

Furthermore, lots of the information I mentioned is *not* in the RFC database.

> ...

Best regards, Julian
rfc-interest mailing list
Received on Wednesday, 9 May 2012 13:34:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:42:19 UTC