[rfc-i] Comments in the canonical RFCs

Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) jhildebr at cisco.com
Fri May 9 11:34:51 PDT 2014

+1.  We probably want to retain the last edited copy of the XML separate
from the published canonical version for other reasons (e.g. expanding
TOC), and I don't mind that copy having all the comments left in.  When
you go to -bis that document, you can start from the last-edited version,
rather than the canonical one.

On 5/9/14, 1:08 PM, "Donald Eastlake" <d3e3e3 at gmail.com> wrote:

>I support removal of comments before publication. Hidden potential
>junk is something we don't want.
> Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
> 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
> d3e3e3 at gmail.com
>On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Nico Williams <nico at cryptonector.com>
>> On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Dave Thaler <dthaler at microsoft.com>
>>> <!-- The following boilerplate comes from <insert url here>. -->
>>> I don't know if there's enough value in keeping such comments to make
>>> RFC editing process take on the job of worrying about which type a
>>>comment is.
>> Making them remove such comments might be problematic, and they might
>> forget.  Unless we have tools that know how to remove such comments.
>> (Huh, do XML processors have options to strip out comments?)  And if
>> we don't have such tools then we'll need to have XML submissions'
>> source reviewed!
>> Therefore that is my concern here: the need to either have XML
>> comments automatically removed or reviewed.  I prefer the former, and
>> that makes the matter moot.
>> Nico
>> --
>> _______________________________________________
>> rfc-interest mailing list
>> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>rfc-interest mailing list
>rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org

Joe Hildebrand

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list