[rfc-i] Review of draft-reschke-xml2rfc-00
elwynd at folly.org.uk
Fri Nov 8 11:44:31 PST 2013
I checked through the draft mainly using the knowledge that I gained in
A few comments.. clearly a lot more to do.
s2.1: Note: No <...ref> elements in abstract.
s2.4: To the best of my knowledge area is not used anywhere.
s220.127.116.11: I never worked out what 'name' did. Maybe something to do
s18.104.22.168: Values 'abnf' - describe current effects. Should also use
'mib', 'pib', 'xml' and a default.
s22.214.171.124: The default for align used to be the same as the parent figure
s2.6.2: 'organization' used to be required but could be empty - required
if attributes are empty in refs.
2.12: Worth noting *not* in 'artwork' (true for all other ...refs.
2.13: Will need to explain the arcane rules on what is in a date.
2.13: Also in reference.
s2.17: Check: Are alt, height, width, src in both figure and artwork?
s126.96.36.199: [there is some inconsistency in documentation which uses
sub-item instead of subitem.]
s2.27.1: Note that processors are supposed to preserve the order of the
elements in the contents.
2.34: Also mentioned in Contents.
188.8.131.52: Using the anchor in a <t> is problematic!
[And it has an index!!]
More information about the rfc-interest