[rfc-i] Towards 'canonicalization' consensus

Phillip Hallam-Baker hallam at gmail.com
Thu Jun 21 15:30:09 PDT 2012


Some points:

0) It is not helpful to talk about C18N as a requirement because there
are multiple requirements that might require a particular format to be
supported but they don't all necessarily point to the same format in
each case. Making a design choice a requirement is begging the
question.

1) It is really convenient to have the RFC editor toolchain be based
on a single internal format.
1a) The author tools should support multiple input formats (including
HTML and XML2RFC+)
1b) The presentation tools should support multiple output formats
(including HTML, the internal format)
1c) The internal format needs to be stable over long periods as it is
the format that other tools will need to hook into.

2) Lawyers use PDF/A as their lingua franca. A decently formatted
PDF/A output (e.g. PDF/A of the HTML) should be supported
2a) The PDF/A docs should be signed (like the current RFCs are)
2b) We should not try to get any deeper into lawyerly requirements.


-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list