[rfc-i] feedback on draft-hoffman-rfcformat-canon-others-00,
paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Mon May 21 13:07:25 PDT 2012
On May 21, 2012, at 3:53 PM, Martin Rex wrote:
> 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?
Can you say why plain text with line breaks at the end of paragraphs and in art can only be displayed "by special tools"? Or edited "by special tools"? Every text editor I have used for the past decade on multiple OS platforms can display and edit such files. I'm not sure what could be less "deliberately obfuscated" than plain text, but you often see things a tad differently.
Quite frankly, I don't care what tools the RFC Editor uses to create any of the formats. It would be grand if they shared them with us, but it doesn't really matter as long as the input to the RFC process can be done with a reasonable toolset.
More information about the rfc-interest