[rfc-i] Does the canonical RFC format need to be "readable" by developers and others?

Peter Sylvester peter.sylvester at edelweb.fr
Sat Jul 7 01:01:08 PDT 2012


On 07/07/2012 08:38 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2012-07-06 23:31, Joe Touch wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 7/6/2012 5:56 AM, Peter Sylvester wrote:
>>> On 07/06/2012 02:41 PM, Martin Rex wrote:
>>>> Julian Reschke wrote:
>>>>> On 2012-07-06 01:44, Martin Rex wrote:
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> Moving away from plain ASCII is magnitudes easier than moving away
>>>>>> from
>>>>>> XML, which is why ASCII is a pretty good choice in the first place.
>>>>>> ...
>>>>> If moving away from plain ASCII was "easy", it would have happened
>>>>> already.
>>> Martin:
>>>
>>> In this millenium I don't think that any RFC had been written
>>> directly in ASCII only with a simple editor as tool.
>>
>> See RFC5385. We've discussed its use in ths thready.
>> ...
>
> ? It was written in Word, no?
and the text says:

   Internet Drafts and RFCs are predominantly written in embedded-text,
    compile-based formatting systems [1  <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5385#ref-1>][4][5  <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5385#ref-5>].  T


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20120707/9e65dded/attachment.htm>


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list