[rfc-i] Proper way to include examples with yet-to-be-assigned values?
johnl at taugh.com
Fri Aug 13 10:53:38 PDT 2010
>For drafts that reach the RFC Editor in XML markup, the obvious solution
>would be to augment xml2rfc's vocabulary so that these TBDs stand out
>during editing, and it can easily be checked that they are gone once the
>spec is finished.
It is my impression that live human staff at the RFC Editor hand-edits
every RFC, so whatever we do has to be evident to humans, not
necessarily perfectly parsable by computers.
For rather a long time I've been using the string TBD in capital
letters, as something that editors can understand and easily search
for. Why do we need anything fancier than that?
More information about the rfc-interest