[rfc-i] Does the canonical RFC format need to be "readable" by developers and others?
johnl at taugh.com
Thu Jun 21 13:27:59 PDT 2012
>Rather, there should be one form that readers who are NOT active IETF
>members, and who may not be able to read XML or SGML, can check in the
>case of apparent inconsistencies to make sure they know what the precise
I'm still having trouble imagining someone who was unable to figure
out the codes in xml2rfc but nonetheless had sufficient technical
depth to make sense of a typical RFC. As I (and no doubt many others)
can say from experience, if a question like this arises in a court
case, the lawyers don't try to figure it out themselves. They hire an
expert to explain it.
>If we decide that HTML is the right input form, I am probably willing to
>let some well-defined rendition of that HTML be the canonical form for
>resolving such inconsistencies.
Man, there's a swamp. Do you really want to put a million lines of
browser code in the line of fire to interpret an RFC?
More information about the rfc-interest