[rfc-i] issue: canonical formats
tbray at textuality.com
Sat Jun 2 10:30:47 PDT 2012
If they’re too stupid to make a copy of the RFC an attachment to their
contract, i.e. they accept a dependency on something identified
vaguely by its title, nothing we can do is gonna help them. And with
that, let’s adjourn this meeting of the Boy Lawyers’ Club.
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think a lot of the argument here comes from what people imagine would be
> an issue, not what is an issue.
> Twenty years ago there is no question that courts had issues with electronic
> documents and were likely to behave in expensive and odd ways. That hasn't
> been the case for a long time now. Every court, even criminal courts
> routinely encounters electronic documents like emails in practically every
> Unless there is a big problem with the output format, I really can't see a
> case hinging on what the IETF happened to nominate as the canonical format.
> If rendering the document in HTML vs PDF/A gave rise to a semantic
> difference in the specification the court would have to decide whether that
> mattered and what the consequences were. The fact that one version of the
> document was considered to be 'canonical' would be rather unlikely to be the
> deciding factor.
> On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman at vpnc.org> 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
>> --Paul Hoffman
>> rfc-interest mailing list
>> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> Website: http://hallambaker.com/
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest