[rfc-i] Does the canonical RFC format need to be "readable" by developers and others?

[Julian Reschke]

On 2012-06-22 11:53, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 22 Jun 2012, at 11:41 , Julian Reschke wrote:
>
>> That is incorrect. Many part of the reference are optional; <abstract> certainly is.
>
> That's nice. But now tell me based on:
>
> http://xml.resource.org/authoring/draft-mrose-writing-rfcs.html#references
>
> how do I make this happen:
>
> [1]  Cerf, V., "The Catenet Model for Internetworking," Information
>       Processing Techniques Office, Defense Advanced Research Projects
>       Agency, IEN 48, July 1978.
>
> The problem with XML2RFC is that it makes perfect sense once you're an expert, but then, you first need to be an expert.
>
> For people who already know XML I'm sure all of this is great, but for those of us who don't know XML having to learn it to be able to write drafts is cruel and unusual punishment.

<reference anchor="VC1978">
   <front>
     <title>The Catenet Model for Internetworking</title>
     <author initials="V." surname="Cerf" fullname="Vint Cerf"/>
     <date month="July" year="1978"/>
   </front>
   <seriesInfo name="Information Processing Techniques Office, Defense 
Advanced Research Projects Agency, IEN" value="48"/>
</reference>

And yes, this is an abuse of seriesInfo; caused by the xml2rfc not being 
flexible enough. I've made a proposal to fix this quite some time ago 
(-> 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2629xslt/rfc2629xslt.html#ext.element.prose>).

Best regards, Julian