[rfc-i] RFC Production Center request for unnumbered sections
Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Thu Dec 12 11:17:58 PST 2013
On 13/12/2013 03:03, Elwyn Davies wrote:
> If we go down the path of modifying the Section element then maybe we
> should consider doing away with the Note element which behaves more or
> less like the proposed unnumbered section but is currently only allowed
> at the end of Front elements - but I guess that is not backwards
Yep, that's exactly what I was thinking of when I mentioned suborning
xml2rfc for non-RFC purposes, as I did years ago during the IETF's
ION experiment. There is a trace of it at the beginning of
which I maintain using xml2rfc. I could survive having to change the
<note title="Administrivia"> into an unnumbered <section>.
> As an alternative to modifying the Section spec we could allow Notes at
> the beginning and/or end of Font and Back.
> Currently Notes don't appear in the ToC (mainly because they are before
> the ToC I suspect). This could be be implicitly or explicitly
> (toc="yes/no" attribute) modified for Notes later in the document.
> How would an unnumbered section be referenced?
> On Wed, 2013-12-11 at 16:03 -0800, Alice Russo wrote:
>> Hi Jim,
>> I added http://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc/trac/ticket/105 to the xml2rfc issuetracker at the request of the RSE because it has a tie-in with the future style guide, draft-flanagan-style.
>> It's fine with me for it to be grouped with v3 vocabulary changes.
>> On Dec 11, 2013, at 12:16 PM, Jim Schaad wrote:
>>> The RFC PC has requested that this change be made in the v2 format.
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Paul Hoffman [mailto:paul.hoffman at vpnc.org]
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 11:54 AM
>>>> To: Jim Schaad
>>>> Cc: RFC Interest
>>>> Subject: Re: [rfc-i] RFC Production Center request for unnumbered sections
>>>> On Dec 11, 2013, at 10:45 AM, Jim Schaad <ietf at augustcellars.com> wrote:
>>>>> The request springs from some of the changes that are being looked at
>>>> how sections are done in the newer proposed format.
>>>> That seems fine (but not yet reflected in the Wiki page for that format),
>>> but it
>>>> doesn't explain why you're trying to get it changed in the v2 format.
>>>> --Paul Hoffman=
>>> rfc-interest mailing list
>>> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
>> rfc-interest mailing list
>> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest