[rfc-i] feedback on draft-hoffman-rfcformat-canon-others-00,

Martin Rex mrex at sap.com
Mon May 21 12:53:03 PDT 2012


Paul Hoffman wrote:
> 
> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > 
> > 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?

I would ask a different question:  Why should the canonical format
be delibertately obfuscated so that it can only be displayed,
edited and produced by special tools?


-Martin


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list