[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 


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list