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@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf