[rfc-i] Input Syntax vs Canonical Form/rfcedstyle vs Output Formats [was: Re: Comments on draft-hoffman-xml2rfc-06]
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
In general, how does one verify that these rules on representations are
satisfied without involving the formatters that generate the
More information about the rfc-interest