[rfc-i] New proposal for "canonical and others"

John Levine johnl at taugh.com
Sat Jun 16 17:19:15 PDT 2012

>As long as we're pedantic: just because they manage to write it, doesn't
>mean they can read it.

Hmmn.  Is there some reason to believe that it is useful to make
unsupported assertions that fly in the face of our experience?

By the way, yes, there are XML editors that can edit xml2rfc, a point
that's been repeatedly made on this list.  They may not be fabulous,
but they're good enough that some people use them.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list