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

Andrew Sullivan ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
Fri Jun 22 08:43:40 PDT 2012

On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 05:14:48PM +0200, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2012-06-22 11:53, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> >The problem with XML2RFC is that it makes perfect sense once you're an expert, but then, you first need to be an expert.
> There's a mailing list where you can ask for advice.

If we are going to pick the Official Format of Some Tool as the
canonical version of a document, the documentation for that tool
cannot be "ask on the mailing list for help".  I think I have fewer
complaints than Iljitsch about xml2rfc, but I do not believe that the
documentation model of Linux systems circa 1995 is an acceptable one
for the mainline standard tool, if it's to become such.

I still refuse to state an opionion of whether some official format
convenient to one tool ought to be canonical.  But if it is to be,
then I think we must insist that the format has to be able to handle
corner cases that, perhaps, it does not at present.  Otherwise, the
required format won't really be canonical -- some other form will be.



Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list