[rfc-i] issue: canonical formats
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Fri Jun 1 10:20:51 PDT 2012
On 2012-06-01 19:13, Joe Touch wrote:
> On 6/1/2012 10:04 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> On 2012-06-01 18:49, Joe Touch wrote:
>>> On 6/1/2012 7:55 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>>>> Optional structure serves only one purpose AFAICT - support for future
>>>>> editing, but the cost is more complexity in the archival format. Since
>>>>> most revisions are rewrites (after the RFC is published), we should
>>>>> be trading stability and persistence for author convenience.
>>>> How does including additional information affect stability and
>>>> persistence negatively?
>>> If it's hard to remove, it can get in the way of future conversion to
>>> various outputs. If it's not hard to remove, it doesn't.
>> Why would it be hard to remove?
> Removing it might make the resulting file not 'compile' (a frequent
> problem with xml2rfc edits, in my experience).
Well, it needs to be done right.
> > Why would you *want* to remove it?
> It might interfere with an output I want to generate.
Best regards, Julian
More information about the rfc-interest