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 09:55:30 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwimeKMD57CJLLMDDO9OC=_AY2tScH3QpPGWUJxmfo5NAQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
Cc: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>, "julian.reschke@gmx.de" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, rfc-interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, "spec-prod@w3.org" <spec-prod@w3.org>
One way to address 90% of the issue issue would be to simply require:

1) The IETF publish all documents as HTML documents in a proper HTML
markup (i.e. one that uses proportional fonts, bold, italics,
different type styles to denote headings etc.)

2) It be possible to extract a XML2RFC format source from the HTML
document without loss of information.

3) That the HTML markup make use of the same microformat as the W3C
wherever that is possible.


That would seem to me to cover everything apart from the issue of
diagrams. In short I propose

1) Use the existing standard that EVERYONE else on the planet uses
2) Ensure support for legacy systems
3) Don't invent anything new just for the sake of it

I also propose collecting metrics:

* The IETF should measure the number of drafts etc. that are
downloaded in the HTML and caveman formats for cases where both are
available.

* Ten of the top twenty most commonly downloaded RFCs should be made
available in both formats to see whether this increases the number of
accesses.


For the measurement to be fair the caveman and HTML forms should have
equal prominence in the IETF tools. At present I have to download the
XML format and convert it myself by hand which makes it an unfair
comparison.
Received on Wednesday, 9 May 2012 13:56:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 13:56:05 GMT