- From: Paul E. Jones <paulej@packetizer.com>
- Date: Wed, 09 May 2012 10:38:21 -0400
- To: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
- CC: rfc-interest Interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>, spec-prod@w3.org
On 5/9/2012 9:55 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > On 9 May 2012, at 15:41 , Paul E. Jones wrote: > >> > 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. > (Can you guys please not quote everything that came before? A little editing goes a long way.) Better? Note that some HTML programs do not make this so easy. This one I am using today does, but it's not my preferred client. > I think some of us, including myself, have been a bit careless using the word(s) "metadata" in this discussion. What we need most of all is to mark up text that's already there as being the publication date, an author, a reference to an RFC, etc. This allows for much more robust tools because this way we don't have to guess at the meaning of something just from its place in the document. This makes sense. I agree marking up text to identify important elements is reasonable. We should identify what those are and decide what class values to assign. Paul
Received on Wednesday, 9 May 2012 14:39:08 UTC