[rfc-i] For v3: Better identification for multi-document sets
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Sat Dec 28 13:59:23 PST 2013
On 2013-12-28 22:28, Jim Schaad wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: rfc-interest-bounces at rfc-editor.org
> [mailto:rfc-interest-bounces at rfc-
>> editor.org] On Behalf Of Julian Reschke
>> Sent: Friday, December 27, 2013 10:56 AM
>> To: Paul Hoffman; RFC Interest
>> Subject: Re: [rfc-i] For v3: Better identification for multi-document sets
>> On 2013-12-24 04:42, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>>> There are many multi-RFC BCPs and multi-document standards from
>> another SDOs. Maybe we should add and element or attribute to make
>> reference to these normalized.
>>> --Paul Hoffman
>> See proposal from John Klensin in
>> <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc/trac/ticket/106> from which we
>> should start:
>>> It would allow the right thing to happen if, e.g.,
>>> (i) <reference> were modified to allow an "aggregate='yes'"
>>> attribute so that, with that attribute turned on,
>>> <reference anchor="BCP0101">
>>> would suppress the individual anchors on output but otherwise do the
>>> right thing. And
>> The tricky part is whether the container itself should allow certain child
>> elements such as <title>, and also what to do with the seriesInfo elements
>> nested <references> that repeat the container information.
> Another issue that needs to be considered is the question of recursion.
> Should I be able to do
> <reference anchor="Keywords">
> <reference anchor="BCPXXXX">
> <reference anchor="RFC2119">
It's an interesting thought; do we have a use case?
DTD-wise the right answer might be to pick a different name for the
Best regards, Julian
More information about the rfc-interest