[rfc-i] Comments in the canonical RFCs
pkyzivat at alum.mit.edu
Fri May 9 13:26:15 PDT 2014
On 5/9/14 2:34 PM, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) wrote:
> +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.
When you say "last edited" one, do you mean the last version from the
WG? Or the last edit done by the editor?
If you mean the last one done by the editor, then that would be an ok
one to use as basis for bis. Otherwise not.
> 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.
>>> rfc-interest mailing list
>>> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
>> rfc-interest mailing list
>> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest