[rfc-i] comments on "Format FAQ"
ynir.ietf at gmail.com
Fri Feb 28 11:41:24 PST 2014
On Feb 28, 2014, at 6:03 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
> 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.
Is that the XML of the published RFCs, or the last XML submitted by the authors? IOW does it include the changes made by the RFC editor?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the rfc-interest