[rfc-i] feedback on draft-hoffman-rfcformat-canon-others-00,

[johnl at taugh.com (John Levine)]

>I believe the canonical version should be the one that the most people are
>going to prefer use in order to decrease the likelihood that format
>translation errors lead to interop problems.

I would rather the canonical one be one that has a relatively simple
definition and has all the metadata, so it can easily be translated
into other formats and otherwise processed mechanically.

It might turn out that lots of people use PDF or epub or mobi as we
move to portable and handheld devices, but for reasons already
rehashed, I don't think any of those is a good canonical format.
xml2rfc or some profile of html with similar tagging would be better.

R's,
John