4 ms·
Heard of it, but I’m still wondering why every RFC looks like it’s from 1998. We work with structured data all the time. Then I remembered the armistice betwee
by b33j0r 3y ago
Heard of it, but I’m still wondering why every RFC looks like it’s from 1998. We work with structured data all the time.
Then I remembered the armistice between yaml and toml and how I’m still confused about why the python community was torn asunder.
(lol. One looked like python to devs on mac/linux, and one looked like python to windows users who used INI a lot. Only a true scotsman uses plaintext, HTTP-style)
- chrismorgan 3y agoThere’s a lot of history involved, and a difference between authoring and publication formats. It’s only comparatively recently (2016–2019, can’t remember exactly and can’t be bothered looking it up) that they stopped having the canonical form of the published document being monospace plain text with fixed pagination. Now, it’s markup, and so it can readily be presented in quite different ways. Observe this security.txt RFC 9116 formatted in two different ways: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9116 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9116 https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9116.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9116.html