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

Joe Touch touch at ISI.EDU
Thu Oct 9 09:25:35 PDT 2008


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



Dave CROCKER wrote:
...
> But I suspect there needs to be a statement about the relationship
> between authoritative archival format and authoritative submission
> format...

Agreed. Currently, the authoritative archival format is a subset of the
authoritative submission format. I can't see why that would change at
this time, as the result of this proposal.

I understand the interest in revisiting the the set of authoritative
submission formats, but anything that excludes the archival format seems
broken to me.

Further, the selection of the required set of either needs to be just as
considerate of the ubiquity of tools to support various formats on
various platforms.

Pushing everyone to write in xml2rfc is just as bad as pushing everyone
to write in Word in that regard. I see no reason to support either.

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

iEYEARECAAYFAkjuMH8ACgkQE5f5cImnZruQhQCgh6wfDVNRn71R3snZuivwwJWy
z3kAoPiGyeTAWM2glzg1fuqBOc9guGG4
=Lhbv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list