[rfc-i] Data point [Re: Fwd:I-D ACTION:draft-hoffman-utf8-rfcs-03.txt]

Joe Touch touch at ISI.EDU
Thu Oct 9 08:03:55 PDT 2008


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi, Dave,

Dave CROCKER wrote:
> 
> 
> Joe Touch wrote:
>> There are various source formats for these documents - .xml, .doc, .nr,
>> and .txt; I think we agree that none of these is important. It's the
>> output format that needs to be supported.
> 
> I think we do *not* necessarily agree and, in fact, that this is where
> much of the interesting debate needs to be.

That raises a new issue. Let's separate these:

source format: the format the author uses to write the doc. this has
been .nr, .xml, .doc in the past; I'm sure there have been other
sources, but I'm not aware of authors writing the .txt output directly
(though that would clearly be possible).

- -- I'm claiming that *I* don't care what the source format is.

authoritative archive format: this is .txt (ASCII, with limitations),
i.e., this is the authoritative version the RFC Editor maintains

- -- the proposal appears to change only this to include UTF-8 with
limitations.

supplemental archive format: accepted and maintained by the RFC Editor,
but not authoritative. this is only .ps AFAIK.

supplemental display formats: .ps, .pdf, .html, etc. - other file
formats that, whether created by the author or others, present the
information in a different visual format, typically generated from the
authoritative archive format (.txt right now).

- ---------------

The questions regarding support and tools are:

1) what editor support is available?

	You appear to argue that we should be able to edit (author,
	modify, quote, etc.) the *authoritative archive format*.
	That makes sense.

	I claim that nobody cares what the source format is,
	and that this is not a focus of this discussion - this
	is the statement I thought you agreed with.

2) what reader support is available?

	IMO, this focuses on the authoritative archival format,
	no others.

3) what print support is available?

	IMO, this focuses on the authoritative archival format,
	no others.

Joe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkjuHVsACgkQE5f5cImnZrvZmQCdE4aTcbdCQKaOf/Jjo3thG7e1
2v0AoJQkymQMf+qaj6+UGwl4y0ae3VM5
=2S82
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list