On 10/27/20 3:26 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
I do want to check in what sense you use the term "official", here -- my understanding is that the party line is that the XML source is the authoritative version and that the rendered versions can be regenerated arbitrarily if there is new tooling deemed to produce "better" output. (IIRC this was even supposed to happen or did happen for the PDF output, which due to an error was not actually using the PDF/A stuff that it was supposed to.) So there can be an "official" plain text version in that it is on the RFC Editor's website, but it is not authoritative or immutable.
I would consider that an unfortunate departure from the longstanding useful tradition that RFCs, once published, aren't revised in place.
The XML version should be irrelevant for most purposes. Nobody looks at it.
Keith
