[rfc-i] feedback on draft-hoffman-rfcformat-canon-others-00, was: RFC Format - final requirements and next steps
paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Fri May 18 08:35:35 PDT 2012
On May 18, 2012, at 12:36 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 2012-05-17 23:50, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> On May 17, 2012, at 11:52 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
>>> I'm saying that Sec 2 says nothing about how those items are indicated. If that's the intent, then it should be stated.
>>> I.e., why are paragraphs defined, but none of the others?
>>> Do you mean that "all text items - paragraphs, headings, list items, etc." are unwrapped text excluding CR/NL characters?
>> Yes. And you're right: I should be more explicit. I'll add this to the next draft.
> I would prefer that CR/NL/LF/TAB are allowed but treated as a single space.
> Isn't that how they are treated in *ML anyway?
So, let me drill down a bit here. Why should that be in the *canonical* version of the RFC, instead of in one of the additional versions provided by the RFC Editor? That is, what advantage do you see in having a canonical version with lines wrapped?
More information about the rfc-interest