[rfc-i] Does the canonical RFC format need to be "readable" by developers and others?

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Thu Jun 21 12:14:40 PDT 2012

I like the way you're thinking.

On 6/21/12 1:05 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> Greetings again. Andrew's and Yoav's last comments indicate a dislike
> for the idea that the canonical RFC format might be "code" like HTML
> or XML because those formats are not meant for reading. My proposal
> for "one canonical, many display" formats assumes that anyone who
> wants to read an RFC will read it in a format they like, and that
> format is not likely to be the canonical format. (To be clear,
> someone doesn't normally *read* an HTML file, they display it in an
> HTML rendering program like a browser.)
> Yoav suggests that there be a preferred display format. I don't see a
> value in publicly preferring any of the formats, and I explicitly
> reject the idea that we need to become junior lawyers and try to
> guess what some court in some country would or would not understand.
> People may be thinking historically about how RFCs are gotten: using
> a URL that ends in ".txt". My proposal is that the canonical URL for
> an RFC leads to a page that gives all the display options, including
> grabbing the canonical document itself. This is a "one extra click"
> operation. People who use RFCs regularly would be able to go
> instantly to getting an RFC in their preferred viewing format knowing
> the naming convention, giving a "no extra click" operation for repeat
> users who understand patterns.

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list