[rfc-i] comments on "Format FAQ"
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Fri Feb 28 08:03:19 PST 2014
On 2014-02-28 16:52, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On Feb 27, 2014, at 11:18 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
>> On 2014-02-27 17:56, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>>> On Feb 27, 2014, at 7:52 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
>>>> Well, we could publish the HTML/PDF/whatever versions, and keep the XML for ourselves :-) (And yes, that's not what I said before)
>>> This is a stunningly bad idea, so I hope the smiley was to indicate that it was not serious.
>> I believe it's a good idea.
>>> If we make a mistake in the canonical RFC, we have to make the public effort to fix it with a new RFC. That is the way to build trust in the system.
>> I wasn't talking (anymore) about canonical RFCs.
> Yes you were. You said "keep the XML for ourselves". That is an action related to the canonical RFC: keeping it private.
Are you intentionally misinterpreting me?
I was talking about pre-cutover RFCs for which we do have "good" XML
source (in that when processed we get something identical or close to
identical to the published plain text).
My proposal was to publish those, alongside with their HTML/PDF versions.
Heather didn't like that, so my revised proposal was to keep the XML,
and just publish the HTML.
And yes, the archived XML of published RFCs already is available on
request, and nobody has suggested to change that.
>> But we can automatically check whether the XML that we have is "correct" (by running it through the formatter and comparing the result with the published plain text).
> Keeping the XML private so we are the only ones who can check will cause distrust.
>> If this is the case, what would be the reason *not* to make an HTML version of that spec available?
> Of course we are publishing the HTML. What you proposed, which I think is wrong, was keeping the XML private.
Again, I'm talking about pre-cutover RFCs. As in those that are
Best regards, Julian
More information about the rfc-interest