[rfc-i] New proposal for "canonical and others"
Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)
rse at rfc-editor.org
Wed Jun 20 08:25:01 PDT 2012
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.
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?
More information about the rfc-interest