[rfc-i] Embedding stuff (code, etc.) in RFCs

Nico Williams nico at cryptonector.com
Sat Jul 13 09:34:37 PDT 2013


On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 3:53 AM, Riccardo Bernardini
<framefritti at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> RFC5662 should be the canonical RFC *today* for code extraction.
>>
>> +1
>
> Let me emphasize that there are not many differences between the
> RFC5662 approach and mine: in both cases we mark each line to be
> extracted with a special punctuation: /// in RFC5662, "!." and "!," in
> mine.  It is true that the RFC5662 is simpler and it requires only a
> shell line for extraction; however, the RFC5662 approach
>
>   * cannot handle more than one file
>   * cannot handle lines longer than 60-something characters
> (considering the margin and the marker)
>   * cannot handle non-7-bit octects

I think this is just too much for our little text format.

This might be a great argument to make XML the canonical format (where
XML is used as the input format anyways), since there's no need to
make the text-format RFC ugly.

(Just to be clear: I hate writing I-Ds in xml2rfc, but I think XML is
the correct answer for this problem.)

Alternatively we should do the tarball URI thing.

> Those limitations were not a problem in RFC5662 because of the
> specific nature of the files to be extracted.  If we want a system

Because it was one RFC for one file.

If you had ten files for one RFC and so it turned into 11 RFCs, that
would kinda suck.  It'd be manageable, but it'd suck.

Nico
--


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list