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

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. 

Larry

-----Original Message-----
From: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org [mailto:rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org] On Behalf Of Paul Hoffman
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 7:56 PM
To: rfc-interest; spec-prod@w3.org
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] IETF RFC format <-> W3C pubrules

On May 8, 2012, at 7:45 PM, Larry Masinter wrote:

> I think there are a common set of requirements for archivable, accessible, Unicode, hyperlinked, reliably printable technical specifications suitable for standardization, as well as some unique requirements of each organization in order to deal with differing legacy, audiences, and compatibility requirements.

For the folks on spec-prod: note that Larry started that sentence with "I think that...". There are some people on the rfc-interest list who agree with him about the requirements, and some who do not. I propose that you don't assume that Larry is right, and I don't propose that you ask the IETF what your requirements should be.

--Paul Hoffman

_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

Received on Wednesday, 9 May 2012 03:14:56 UTC