[rfc-i] RFC editing tools
"Martin J. Dürst"
duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
Wed Dec 12 01:43:34 PST 2012
On 2012/12/12 0:45, Stefan Santesson wrote:
> One more thing that we may want to consider if choosing an XML schema as
> the source format.
> Curent xml2rfc defines elements using compolex types with mixed content.
> That is, using elements where you freely can mix text and subelements.
> That is probably a good solution to make the XML Schema manual-edit
> friendly, but it makes it a great deal harder to parse the content
> At least with the tools I'm familiar with.
> I imagine that it would be possible to convert an XML document according
> to the xml2rfc schema to an XML schema that isn't using mixed content.
> This might be a consideration for a source format where you could add info
> to an xml2rfc doc to capture some of the data currently missing for
> allowing transformation to all presentations formats, including back to
> xml2rfc if necessary.
This doesn't make sense to me. Mixed content is what you need for
running text. So the markup that describes paragraphs in xml2rfc uses
mixed content. It is possible (as Julian said) to wrap every bit of text
in an element, but it would be hopeless overkill.
On the other hand, mixed content isn't in general very appropriate for
simple data, including metadata. But I'm not aware of places where
xml2rfc uses mixed content needlessly. If you know some of these, please
More information about the rfc-interest