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

John Levine johnl at taugh.com
Thu Jun 21 12:36:28 PDT 2012


>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.

That's consistent with what I expected.  Some of us use rsync to
download the new RFCs every night, which also should be
straightforward, with an rsync module for each format so we can fetch
whichever one(s) we like.

With respect to the claim that no normal person can read XML, I think
that's OK, because no normal person is likely to write an RFC.  There
are some XML DTDs so dense and awful that you can't see through the
forest of angle brackets, but xml2rfc (and any plausible followon for
RFCs) isn't one of them.  If you can read ABNF or any programming
language in current use, you can figure out an xml2rfc document if you
need to.

R's,
John


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list