Opened 9 years ago

Closed 9 years ago

#245 closed defect (fixed)

Dave Thaler's review of draft-iab-rfcformatreq

Reported by: dthaler@… Owned by: draft-iab-rfcformatreq@…
Priority: major Milestone: milestone1
Component: draft-iab-rfcformatreq Version: 1.0
Severity: In WG Last Call Keywords:
Cc: rfc-interest@…

Change History (5)

comment:1 Changed 9 years ago by dthaler@…

  • Component changed from draft-iab-rfc-format to draft-iab-rfcformatreq
  • Owner changed from draft-iab-rfc-format@… to draft-iab-rfcformatreq@…

comment:2 Changed 9 years ago by bernard_aboba@…

  • Cc rfc-interest@… added
  • Keywords added
  • Milestone set to milestone1
  • Owner changed from draft-iab-rfcformatreq@… to bernard_aboba@…
  • Severity changed from - to In WG Last Call
  • Version set to 1.0

comment:3 Changed 9 years ago by bernard_aboba@…

  • Keywords removed
  • Owner changed from bernard_aboba@… to draft-iab-rfcformatreq@…

comment:4 Changed 9 years ago by n.brownlee@…

Heather's response:

[DT1] Regarding having the word "Requirements" in the title, that is
something Nevil and I debated for a while, and eventually determined
that this document was as much about the Development of the Series as it
was about the Requirements for Format.

[DT2] Regarding inconsistent capitalization of sections, that has been
fixed. Section headings have been capitalized, sub-sections are not
(except for first word)

[DT3] Fixed

[DT4] Removed those sub-bullets entirely. They weren't helping.

[DT5] Forward reference added

[DT6] Added

[DT7] Fixed

[DT8] Text revised

[DT9] I wouldn't normally add "The" to the beginning of a sentence like
that, but that's just personal preference. Added.

[DT10] Fixed

[DT11] How did that get missed by all of us? Fixed.

[DT12] Removing the pagination requirement will definitely result in
guidance regarding section length. But that belongs in the Style Guide,
not here.

[DT13] I see your point, but I believe people were making that argument
against reflowable text in general, even though their main point was
just the question of graphics and tables.

[DT14] Fixed

[DT15] Fixed

[DT16] This part of the text was significantly revised based on others'

[DT17] Argument against metadata in the final formats revised to state:
"Metadata adds additional overhead to the overall process of creating
RFCs and may complicate future usability as a result of requiring
backward compatibility for metadata tags."

[DT18] All of section 2 is geared towards capturing arguments to help
inform the requirements that are then listed in Section 3. At the time
these arguments were being held, all the requirements were "potential."
The actual requirements are captured in section 3.

[DT19] Section 2.2 text revised: "Some of the discussion beyond the
issues described above went into a review of potential solutions. Those
solutions and the debate around them added a few more points to the list
of potential requirements for a change in RFC Format. In particular,
the discussion of tools introduced the idea of whether a change in
format should also include the creation and ongoing support of specific
RFC authoring and/or rendering tools and whether the Canonical format
should be a format that must go through a rendering agent to be readable."

[DT20] We have had a very challenging time finding the right word here.
"code", "markup language", and "source code" were all potential
options. We did end up changing this point since it was incorrect on a
few levels to state: "Having the Revisable format be in a markup
language instead of in a simple text-formatting structure ties us in to
specific tools and/or tool support going forward."

[DT21] The entire "Accessibility" point was revised based on other
feedback. I would argue that "limitations on color" does include "no
color" - the former is general accessibility advice, and the latter is
how I am applying it for reasons of accessibility and editorial sanity.
New text:
The documents must be accessible to people with physical or age-related
disabilities, including alternative text for images and limitations on
color. See the W3C's Accessibility documents [WCAG20] and the United
Nations "Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities" [UN2006]
for guidance. Appropriate authoring tools are highly desirable but
focus on the creation of Internet-Drafts, a topic outside the scope of
the RFC Editor. [WCAG20]

[DT22] Fixed. I'm fairly horrible with homonyms, too.

[DT23] Good point. Added.

[DT24] I am not sure it would be appropriate to change "may" with
"will". They will not be requirements, but we may need their guidance
for special circumstances. For example, after discussion with the Tools
team and the Editors, I'm not sure we can have PDF formats without

[DT25] The question of if, where, and how to allow UTF-8 has been a
topic under intense discussion. For right now, I am going to leave this
as it is and see if the rules as I've laid them out will be sufficient
for 99% of our cases.

comment:5 Changed 9 years ago by hlflanagan@…

  • Resolution set to fixed
  • Status changed from new to closed

I believe all items other than UTF-8 have been resolved, and the UTF-8 question is being handled in several other tickets. Closing this one out.

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.