[rfc-i] New proposal for "canonical and others"
paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Sat Jun 16 08:01:10 PDT 2012
On Jun 15, 2012, at 7:28 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 6/15/12 4:21 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> Greetings again. I was surprised by the amount of interest people
>> here had for having the canonical format for RFCs be XML or HTML.
> Input format, output format, "archival" format, or something else?
Not sure what you mean by "output format", but the draft says that it is the input format (that is, the file that is passed to the RFC Editor from a stream), and the canonical format that never changes once on the RFC Editor's web site.
More information about the rfc-interest