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

[Joe Touch]

On Jun 16, 2012, at 5:19 PM, "John Levine" <johnl at taugh.com> wrote:

>> 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.

So is ASCII, which everyone uses now. By this thread's logic, there is no change from the status quo needed. 

Joe


> 
> R's,
> John
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest