Re: RFC Suggest: Use of L<> to link RFCs; "CONFLICTS WITH", "REQUIRES", "STATUS" sections

On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 07:34:51PM -0400, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
>
>  * Standardize the STATUS section, which contains one line of data that
>    indicates the status.  Status can be exactly one of the following states
>    (subject to additional possible states, of course):
>
>             In-Discussion
>             Superseded-by: L<perl6-RFCs/"$NUMBER">
>             Approved-by: $NAME $EMAIL
>             Rejected-by: $NAME $EMAIL
>             Defunct

RFCs are not approved or rejected.  The author may withdraw them,
however.

Superseded is a good idea, though.

>  * Addition of a REQUIRES section, which is a list of RFCs, one per line.
>    This section indicates that this RFC is useless if the listed RFC(s) are
>    not approved.
>  
>  * Addition of a "CONFLICTS WITH" section, which is a list of RFCs, one per
>    line.  This section indicates that this RFC is in direct conflict with
>    the listed RFC(s), and that it is impossible to approve this RFC if any
>    one of the listed RFCs are approved.

I like these ideas, too.

K.

-- 
Kirrily Robert -- <[email protected]> -- http://netizen.com.au/
Open Source development, consulting and solutions
Level 10, 500 Collins St, Melbourne VIC 3000
Phone: +61 3 9614 0949  Fax: +61 3 9614 0948  Mobile: +61 410 664 994