Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
Headers, footers, and page breaks are not required (if people
really want them, so be it; I find them of marginal use and a
source of much pain in computing diffs, even with good tools)
The new "unpaginated" output option of xml2rfc helps. OTOH
a script like rfcmarkup can't handle everything automatically,
if I want an URL for say "application as defined in FYI 18" the
nearest I can get is <http://tools.ietf.org/html/1983#page-5>
The page numbers are no complete waste of time in this case.
Documents SHOULD include copies of whatever source form the
editor is using, to facilitate transfer to a new editor if
necessary.
Maybe s/include/link to/ or s/include/also offer/ or similar,
in addition to any rfc4321.txt there could be the rfc4321.src
(any src used by the authors) in the "official" archives (IETF
and / or rfc-editor).
The preferred form is WHATEVER THE AUTHOR IS ACTUALLY USING;
the idea is to avoid information loss by using something as
close as possible to the source.
With the usual caveats for src-formats like DOC.
The document, images, and source are published as a group.
Details TBD by the publishers (rfc-editor and / or IETF),
they should be free to decide how they "implement" this.
For "IETF" read Bill or Henrik or whoever is responsible
for the relevant IETF tools, and IETF ftp + http servers.
documents published by the RFC Editor:
Plain English text, UTF-8, formatted in some reasonable
fashion
That's apparently what Paul proposes in his new -01 draft:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hoffman-utf8-rfcs
If you want UTF-8 anyway, why only at this late stage ?
The discussed, last-called, and appproved ASCII version
will then be different from the published UTF-8 version:
It's not difficult to get something wrong at this point.
An UTF-8 version of RFC 3987 could be very different
from http://tools.ietf.org/html/3987 (just an example).
Bye, Frank
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf