[rfc-i] issue: canonical formats
jhildebr at cisco.com
Sat Jun 2 11:33:42 PDT 2012
+1. I as I said before, let's focus on the different output formats saying
the same thing, if only because it's the right thing to do.
On 6/2/12 10:30 AM, "Tim Bray" <tbray at textuality.com> wrote:
> If they¹re 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, let¹s adjourn this meeting of the Boy Lawyers¹ 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
>>> 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
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest