[rfc-i] Input Syntax vs Canonical Form/rfcedstyle vs Output Formats [was: Re: Comments on draft-hoffman-xml2rfc-06]
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Thu May 1 23:29:16 PDT 2014
On 2014-05-02 01:19, Elwyn Davies wrote:
> The quoted bits from s2.46 are a sort of mix up where it is implied that
> white space is allowed but the canonical form at least (and probably any
> other formatter) should canonicalize the layout (as well as checking the
> numbers make sense).
> So my point is that the vocabulary should specify that variants are
> possible (white space in varying quantities or none; month numbers or
> English names); this is only peripherally related to the RFC editor
> style. On the other hand, the canonicalizer could be expected to
> generate the canonical form as per rfcedstyle, e.g., period and single
> space between initials, comma and single space between items in
> updates/obsoletes lists, month names in dates). These of course still
> match the v3 vocabulary.
> The canonicalizer could be mentioned in the discussions of formatters.
My feeling is that you are over-complicating things. If the input can be
canonicalized, what do we gain by rewriting it in the canonical form?
Best regards, Julian
More information about the rfc-interest