[rfc-i] Number of submission formats
nico at cryptonector.com
Fri Jan 18 19:35:14 PST 2013
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 7:48 PM, Michael Richardson <mcr at sandelman.ca> wrote:
> okay, so as someone who has in the past needed to
> a) rev an RFC into RFCfoo-bis,
> b) taken over an ID whose authors went awol
> it would be very nice if regardless of the multitude of possible input
> formats and output rendering, the "editable" "XML-like" format was
> available. As .txt can be produced by a Word format today, and is
> non-trivial to either turn back into word or into .xml, and the
> rfc-editor editable format is nroff at present, it's a pain.
> As much as I would like to see the .txt remain as an output format, I
> would like to see it go away away an acceptable input format.
A lot of our efforts are collaborative, often long after a -00 of an
I-D is published. It helps to have formats and tools that are
amenable to collaboration.
> My impression is that this is non-controversial, except for this thread
> makes me think some people have other ideas.
My guess is that many authors (particularly in the independent
submission stream?) are either unfamiliar with the formats and tools
we do have, or they are unwilling to use those tools. I don't see why
the RFC-Editor should cater to them, but I can only encourage that the
RFC-Editor stop taking .txt as an input format.
More information about the rfc-interest