[rfc-i] feedback on draft-hoffman-rfcformat-canon-others-00, was: RFC Format - final requirements and next steps
Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Fri May 18 10:10:50 PDT 2012
On 2012-05-18 16:35, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> 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?
Oh, I see what you mean. But then there needs to be a constraint
on the production process to avoid inconsistencies caused by CR/NL/LF/TAB
in the source file (whatever it may be).
More information about the rfc-interest