[rfc-i] issue: canonical formats

John Levine johnl at taugh.com
Wed Jun 6 08:27:26 PDT 2012

>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.

I suppose, but can you describe some bugs in an xml2rfc version of a
document which wouldn't be apparent in the HTML and text translations,
but would matter?

If you're worried about ABNF, I'd think that xml2rfc would be better
than most alternatives, since it's straightforward for a tool to find
all the sections tagged as ABNF, syntax check them, and say "Three
ABNF sections found, 0 syntax errors" which is considerably better
than anything's likely to do with a display format.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list