[rfc-i] issue: canonical formats

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Fri Jun 1 08:58:07 PDT 2012

On 6/1/12 9:55 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On Jun 1, 2012, at 8:12 AM, Joe Hildebrand wrote:
>> I do think we need a canonical output to support some of the legal use
>> cases.
> What the heck is a "legal use case"? Do you have any evidence of a law anywhere that says "the canonical format for publishing must be displayable"?

Patent disputes and the like. One version says XYZ and another version
says XZ because of some formatting glitch. What the exact definition of
the technology?


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list