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

[John Levine]

>singular, form which can be read in the case of inconsistency.
>thus, I am very uncomfortable with a canonical form that is the xml, etc.

Why?  This is a real question.  I submit all my drafts in xml2rfc, I
proof the html and occasionally the txt version.  I'm having trouble
coming up with a plausible scenario in which there would be a problem
with the xml2rfc that wouldn't be apparent in the html and the txt.

R's,
John