[rfc-i] Open issue: semantically tagging data

Yoav Nir ynir at checkpoint.com
Thu Jun 21 11:51:33 PDT 2012


On Jun 21, 2012, at 9:42 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 09:58:47AM -0700, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> 
>> It should a requirement for the canonical document that will be used
>> to generate the other documents.
> 
> I refuse to state a position about this matter, but I want to make
> explicit that the above more or less entails that the "canonical
> document" be source code over which a transformation is run.  That
> probably entails that nobody normal will be able to read the canonical
> form.

I agree. So I think we should also pick one of the output formats (I think the PDF) and call it the "official" output format, so if ever the IETF is required to come up with an official version, we can ship that.

Why PDF?
 - Almost as universally readable as HTML with free (as in beer) tools
 - Page numbers - some like them
 - For whatever reason, lawyers use them
 - Works well with printers.

Yoav


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list