[rfc-i] issue: canonical formats

Tim Bray tbray at textuality.com
Fri Jun 1 09:23:31 PDT 2012


Trying to morph our designs in anticipation of how some hypothetical
court in some hypothetical case in some hypothetical jurisdiction
might use it is a profoundly bad idea.  Because it’d be trying to
solve a problem we don’t remotely understand.

Our primary goal is that our specs be highly usable by implementors
and our secondary goal is that their production be reasonably
efficient and straightforward. I think we’ve got a good chance of
getting those right.

 -T

On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at stpeter.im> wrote:
> 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?
>
> /psa
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list