[rfc-i] Two issues with draft-flanagan-plaintext-00

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Sat Jun 28 13:02:18 PDT 2014

On 29/06/2014 01:46, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Jun 27, 2014, at 11:32 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:
>> It's really too soon to be sure which new format will be the best one
>> for that. If it's txt,
> It's PDF.   Why would you think it's text?

( I didn't take that as snarky. It's a reasonable question.)

I won't know until I have some real experience of all the new
formats. Very possibly it will be pdf; it's an entirely
practical question.

However, a critical issue is how the functionality of rfcdiff
is provided. That's the most important tool for me when
reviewing successive drafts today. (Not so important for RFCs.)
Maybe that that will be based on html format?

(If we were to base diffs on the pdf format,
http://www.qtrac.eu/diffpdf.html looks as if it's OK but
is not free. https://github.com/vslavik/diff-pdf is free
but the output format is quirky to say the least.)


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list