[rfc-i] issue: canonical formats
sm at resistor.net
Wed Jun 6 03:17:27 PDT 2012
At 01:19 06-06-2012, Yoav Nir wrote:
>I think it at least should be the one the author(s) review in
>AUTH48. That way, at least the canonical version has a higher chance
>of being error-free.
If I was writing a draft, I would like people to review the version
which ends up as canonical. I am sure I will make a mistake in the
ABNF and the parser won't flag it. The RFC Editor won't notice
it. I am sure that I may make a mistake in the tables and I won't
notice it. If I want to end up with an error-free version, I'll need
as many people as possible to proof-read the draft. I don't require
any of them to read the canonical version as people has their own
preference when it comes to format or reading device. As I am not
the expert or suzerain, I cannot tell you what is better for you.
>Not going to happen. If there's one thing that these threads made
>clear, it's that Martin Rex and the people who read documents on
>iPhones not going to use the same output format.
I use http://tools.ietf/html/ to read drafts because I find it
convenient. I would use http://tools.ietf.org/id/ to proof-read my
draft as I get a format which is closer to the canonical version.
If there is something to learn from same output format, I can say
that this message will not appear the same to everyone reading
it. It's not that much of a problem unless it contains some ASCII
art. I could replace the ASCII art with a picture to avoid known
problems. It's all a matter of how important it is for me to ensure
that you can understand the diagram.
>Strange, I've never thought of equating "whatever the RFC says" with
>"running code". There's a bunch of thinly- and not-implemented RFCs
>out there, and a bunch of non-conformant implementations.
The RFC series is full of RFCs which will never be implemented. The
RFC series contains RFCs for which there is a large number of
non-conforming implementations. If the the Proposed Standard cannot
be translated into running code, it's a work of fiction.
More information about the rfc-interest