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 07:22:48 -0700
To: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
CC: "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>
Message-ID: <D23D6B9E57D654429A9AB6918CACEAA9C20FC391DC@NAMBX02.corp.adobe.com>
The problem is that then you divorce the "source" material from the "published" material - which seems to be an issue for some people.  

Document provenance is indeed an important concept and there are various groups studying that problem, for different perspectives.


-----Original Message-----
From: Paul E. Jones [mailto:paulej@packetizer.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 9:42 AM
To: Leonard Rosenthol
Cc: julian.reschke@gmx.de; rfc-interest; Paul Hoffman; spec-prod@w3.org
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] IETF RFC format <-> W3C pubrules

But we could always add metadata to an RFC published as an HTML document if there is something we need, regardless of the tool used to produce the RFC.

What is that metadata is needed in the RFC, though?  I'm at a loss for that.  I see the value in having it published separately, as it's something I can use.  The one piece of data I find most useful (what RFCs updated or replaced a given RFC) obviously could not be put into the RFC.


On 5/9/2012 9:34 AM, Leonard Rosenthol wrote:
> 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.
> Leonard
> -----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
> rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
Received on Wednesday, 9 May 2012 14:23:26 UTC

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