[rfc-i] RFC Production Center request for unnumbered sections

Tim Bray tbray at textuality.com
Wed Dec 11 09:29:38 PST 2013


This seems like a pretty big change to ask for.  RFCs have traditionally
had section numbers, and these are commonly used in references to them.  Is
there a precedent for section-number-less RFCs that I missed?


On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 9:03 AM, Jim Schaad <ietf at augustcellars.com> wrote:

> There has been a request from the RFC Production Center to allow for
> unnumbered sections to occur in xml2rfc v2 (Ticket #105).  Doing so will
> change the current schema to implement this.
>
>
>
> The original request is to allow for these sections to occur at the start
> and the end of the middle and back elements.  Discussions in the ticket
> suggest that it should be allowed to occur at the start or end of any
> numbered section.
>
>
>
> The proposed change is as follows:
>
>
>
> 1.       Change the dtd to allow an “unnumbered” attribute on section
> which has a default value of “no”
>
> 2.       Xml2rfc will enforce that a section tagged as “unnumbered”
> cannot occur between any two numbered sections
>
> 3.       Xml2rfc will enforce that a section cannot occur as a child of
> an “unnumbered” section
>
> 4.       Unnumbered sections will be kept on a separate counter from
> numbered sections and will be auto-numbered using ‘u#’ rather than ‘#’.
> Thus leading to ‘rfc.section.u1’ or ‘rfc.section.5.u3’
>
> 5.       Looking at the HTML output for sections, I find it odd that
> there is an ‘a’ element emitted that points to where one is for sections.
>
>     <h1 id="rfc.section.1"><a href="#rfc.section.1">1.</a>
> Introduction</h1>
>
> since we don’t have a bullet in this case to point to, I would propose
> that the ‘a’ element be omitted.
>
>
>
> I have been advised that requests coming from the RFC Production center
> should be satisfied when possible.  The above proposal does go farther than
> what the original request was and can be scaled back if that is felt
> necessary.
>
>
>
> Jim
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20131211/4c9f31ae/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list