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

Paul Kyzivat pkyzivat at alum.mit.edu
Fri May 2 07:44:05 PDT 2014


On 5/2/14 8:57 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:

>       The canonical version of xml2rfc conforms to specific requirements
> in layout, such as line length and running sequences of spaces, and it
> contains specific required components.  The RFC Editor can accept
> versions of xml2rfc that deviate from the canonical version in the
> following ways:
>
>       a.  Maximum input line length: xxx
>
>       b.  Maximum running sequences of white space:  yyy
>
>       c:  Components that may be ommitted, and will be supplied by the
>           RFC Editor:  zzz, zzzz, zzzzz...
>
>
> The above list is, of course, merely meant as an exemplar for the kinds
> of things that might differ between 'input' and 'canonical'.  The
> document should state the differences explicitly.

I'm confused here.

AFAIK points a and b above apply to certain *representations* of the 
input, not to the input itself. I didn't expect there to be a limitation 
on the length of lines in the xml, or on runs of whitespace in the xml.

Those limits extend into the xml in the case of artwork, and maybe a few 
other places.

In general, how does one verify that these rules on representations are 
satisfied without  involving the formatters that generate the 
representation?

	Thanks,
	Paul



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list