[rfc-i] Does the canonical RFC format need to be "readable" by developers and others?
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Fri Jun 22 14:31:11 PDT 2012
On 2012-06-22 23:26, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 22 Jun 2012, at 23:17 , Julian Reschke wrote:
>>> As for 1, we now have RFCs that are about 40 years old. Do we really expect XML2RFC to be around and be compatible with how it operates today in 40 years?
>> I don't see why not, unless we break it.
> I guess there is Fortran code out there that's 40 years old and still runs today, and various types of emulation to run old software. But as a general rule, code rots. It simply stops working when enough time has passed.
I believe the risk that XSLT or Python interpreters disappear is low.
Dunno about TCL.
> So relying on the ability to run code is much more problematic than relying on the ability to decode a once popular format. Or better yet, having a format that's simple enough that new tools to decode it can be created as needed.
Actually, the format *is* simple enough. New code that interprets it has
been implemented twice now (at least).
Best regards, Julian
More information about the rfc-interest