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

[Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)]

On 6/17/12 8:48 AM, John Levine wrote:
>> Assuming that there are multiple formats (this seems unfortunate but 
>> inevitable,) then even if they are generated by tooling there will be 
>> times when they differ.  Based on experience in other contexts when that 
>> happens, it is very helpful if there is a well define "right answer" 
>> even before folks get around to fixing the problem.
> 
> I've been assuming one form will be canonical/archival/official, and
> the other forms will be created mechanically.  If there's a problem
> with the derivative version, we can fix the translator and redo them.
> 
> R's,
> John

Indeed, I am expecting that there will be additional tools for
converting the RFC in to several different formats.  I am not decided on
whether those conversions should happen from the source files or the
canonical file.  I'm thinking the former would be more flexible?

-Heather