[rfc-i] issue: canonical formats

Tim Bray 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.

 -T

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
> case.
>
> 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
>> displayable"?
>>
>> --Paul Hoffman
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rfc-interest mailing list
>> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>
>
>
>
> --
> Website: http://hallambaker.com/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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