[rfc-i] issue: canonical formats

John R Levine johnl at taugh.com
Wed Jun 6 04:29:11 PDT 2012


>> The original xml2rfc, of course.
>
> Leaving aside the facts that despite the missing 😃  this must a joke 
> and that there is not always XML2RFC source for an RFC, this can't work.

Of course it can, once we make xml2rfc the format going forward.  As I 
would hope would be painfully obvious, if we change the canonical format, 
there'll be one canonical format for RFCs 1 through N (except for the ones 
that are in Postscript, or are PDF scans of hand written originals) and 
another one for RFCs N+1 and later.

> Even on this list several people have proclaimed that reading the source 
> is something they are not prepared to do.

That's nice.  I am not prepared to read any future RFC that isn't legible 
on my Kindle, which rules out line printer page images.  Anyone who is 
competent to write an I-D is certainly able to read xml2rfc source if they 
need to, which in nearly all cases, they won't.

> Let alone the lawyers we're trying to get on the good side of by having 
> a designated canonical format.

Sigh.  Please tell me how many documents you have identified for a lawyer 
in legal proceedings, so we can have some idea about the basis for your 
concerns, and we can continue this discussion.  I've done dozens, and the 
question of whether a document's format is "canonical" or official has 
NEVER EVER COME UP.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl at taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
"I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list