[rfc-i] New proposal for "canonical and others"
Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Fri Jun 22 00:24:51 PDT 2012
On 2012-06-21 21:23, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 20 Jun 2012, at 17:25 , Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) wrote:
>> I am expecting that there will be additional tools for
>> converting the RFC in to several different formats. I am not decided on
>> whether those conversions should happen from the source files or the
>> canonical file. I'm thinking the former would be more flexible?
> Under that regime there would be less information in the canonical version than in the source version. Why remove information once it's there? Or, why add information to the source if it's not going to get used?
Since we don't yet have agreed requirements for the various
types of format (source, submission, canonical, archive, or even
presentation) that have been bandied around, I can't begin to
answer these questions.
More information about the rfc-interest