[rfc-i] Does the canonical RFC format need to be "readable" by developers and others?
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Fri Jun 22 14:52:42 PDT 2012
On 2012-06-22 23:43, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 22 Jun 2012, at 23:31 , Julian Reschke wrote:
>> I believe the risk that XSLT or Python interpreters disappear is low. Dunno about TCL.
> CPython's public releases come in three types, distinguished by which part of the version number is incremented:
> • backwards-incompatible versions, where code is expected to break and must be manually ported. The first part of the version number is incremented. These releases happen infrequently—for example, version 3.0 was released 8 years after 2.0.
>> Actually, the format *is* simple enough. New code that interprets it has been implemented twice now (at least).
> How much work is this? And what kind of dependencies are we talking about?
For rfc2629.xslt, the only dependencies are an XSLT 1.0 engine and
something that can display HTML. How much work it was to develop is hard
to say because it was a part time activity over quite some time, and
back when I started there were no test cases.
If it had to be done from scratch, and it wouldn't need to support all
the extensions that rfc2629.xslt supports, it should be doable in less
than four weeks.
> Remember, 40 years is a long time. But I'm pretty sure people will still be reading the IPv6 RFCs 40 years after their publication.
I still don't quite understand what point you're trying to make.
Are you arguing for a format that can be read without conversion, that
is, in a text editor? I believe that's the case for the xml2rfc
vocabulary, if you really need to.
Best regards, Julian
More information about the rfc-interest