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

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

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 09:34:26 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMm+Lwg5EPEUDYvU9BUe2BsxTiz-Xcw8SCwU9tBUJ6CCZTe+Ww@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>, rfc-interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, spec-prod@w3.org
We would be much more likely to get widespread support for metadata
that is supported by tools if W3C, OASIS and IETF all agree to do the
same thing.

On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> 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

Website: http://hallambaker.com/
Received on Wednesday, 9 May 2012 13:35:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 13:35:09 GMT