[rfc-i] Data point [Re: Fwd:I-D ACTION:draft-hoffman-utf8-rfcs-03.txt]
touch at ISI.EDU
Thu Oct 9 09:25:35 PDT 2008
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Dave CROCKER wrote:
> But I suspect there needs to be a statement about the relationship
> between authoritative archival format and authoritative submission
Agreed. Currently, the authoritative archival format is a subset of the
authoritative submission format. I can't see why that would change at
this time, as the result of this proposal.
I understand the interest in revisiting the the set of authoritative
submission formats, but anything that excludes the archival format seems
broken to me.
Further, the selection of the required set of either needs to be just as
considerate of the ubiquity of tools to support various formats on
Pushing everyone to write in xml2rfc is just as bad as pushing everyone
to write in Word in that regard. I see no reason to support either.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the rfc-interest