[rfc-i] Embedding stuff (code, etc.) in RFCs

Phillip Hallam-Baker hallam at gmail.com
Fri Jul 12 17:32:57 PDT 2013

Not so.

People can decide not to try to solve that problem based on a broken
idiotic document format thank you very much.

I see no reason to waste time on a rubbish system that makes me puke every
time I see it.

The plaintext is not the source I code from, it is not the source I review
either. The plaintext copies could have ASCII art porn in for all I care.

On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) <
chris.dearlove at baesystems.com> wrote:

> It is definitive now. And based on where every discussion I've seen on the
> subject goes, not changing soon. So that's what any approach has to be
> built on.
> And I never suggested every line. Distinctive text can be between markers.
> --
> Christopher Dearlove
> Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group
> Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability
> BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre
> West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK
> Tel: +44 1245 242194 |  Fax: +44 1245 242124
> chris.dearlove at baesystems.com | http://www.baesystems.com
> BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
> Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centre,
> Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK
> Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:pkyzivat at alum.mit.edu]
> Sent: 12 July 2013 17:46
> To: Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
> Cc: rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Embedding stuff (code, etc.) in RFCs
> ----------------------! WARNING ! ----------------------
> This message originates from outside our organisation,
> either from an external partner or from the internet.
> Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
> Follow the 'Report Suspicious Emails' link on IT matters
> for instructions on reporting suspicious email messages.
> --------------------------------------------------------
> On 7/12/13 12:39 PM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote:
> > The .txt is the definitive RFC, so extracting from that has its
> advantages.
> It is definitive *now*. But the limitations of that are also clear.
> This is one of them.
> > Perhaps we should have a <code> or whatever in the XML, and then xml2rfc
> to map that to something distinctive, plus a tool to pull the distinctive
> text out of the .txt, while extracting the code from <code> ... </code> in
> the XML would be trivial.
> I don't want the support for code extraction to impact the readability
> of the draft. Having to put special punctuation into the draft,
> especially on every line of code, does, IMO, detract from readability.
>         Thanks,
>         Paul
> ********************************************************************
> This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
> recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
> recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
> You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
> distribute its contents to any other person.
> ********************************************************************
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

Website: http://hallambaker.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20130712/d257268a/attachment.htm>

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list