[rfc-i] Input Syntax vs Canonical Form/rfcedstyle vs Output Formats [was: Re: Comments on draft-hoffman-xml2rfc-06]

Elwyn Davies elwynd at folly.org.uk
Fri May 2 05:22:48 PDT 2014


On Fri, 2014-05-02 at 08:29 +0200, Julian Reschke wrote:
> 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? 
> Concretely?
> 
> Best regards, Julian

1. A combination of automation of some of the work that needs to be done
to take a raw draft into a published RFC plus a standardized and
hopefully reasonably aesthetically pleasing canonical form that isn't
just syntactically correct XML but looks like somebody has taken a bit
of care over it.

2. Less things to remember/get caught out by when inputting the draft
originally.

Regards,
Elwyn 



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list