[rfc-i] Pagination requirements
mrex at sap.com
Tue May 22 18:43:45 PDT 2012
Joe Hildebrand wrote:
> "Martin Rex" <mrex at sap.com> wrote:
> >> No it doesn't. Printing the current format is an absolute mess, unless you
> >> have a vintage line printer.
> > Provably untrue. There is a PDF version for existing RFCs available at
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfcXXXX
> Those aren't canonical, and may not even match the canonical version in
> text, since nobody checks for that.
Why do you think they are NOT canonical?
the rfcmarkup tool that creates these output only adds/inserts
information, it does not filter/remove any information (besides FF),
so there is no risk of loosing anything. That is huge advantage of
the text format and transformations based on it.
The PDF output from tools.ietf.org/html/rfcXXXX is created by
GNU Enscript according to the document properties of the resulting PDF.
so it IS the canonical document with a probability extremely close to 1.
As soon as you start massively inflating I-Ds and RFCs with meta-data
that must be filtered according to the display device, you create the
problem that different rendering engines may (incorrectly) filter
information that it shouldn't have filtered, or that meta-data is
inconsistent or wrong, but it isn't visible/apparent in the
specific output format that the reviewer used.
So any uncertainty problem, that does NOT currently exist with the
canonical ASCII format, is going to be newly created with "rich" formats.
More information about the rfc-interest