[rfc-i] Review of draft-reschke-xml2rfc-00
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Sat Nov 9 01:49:11 PST 2013
On 2013-11-08 20:44, Elwyn Davies wrote:
> 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.
But could provide valuable metadata.
> s126.96.36.199: I never worked out what 'name' did. Maybe something to do
> with filenames.
> s188.8.131.52: Values 'abnf' - describe current effects. Should also use
> 'mib', 'pib', 'xml' and a default.
The "current effects" depend on the processor. But yes, we want to
describe common values.
> s184.108.40.206: The default for align used to be the same as the parent figure
Interesting; this needs a test case.
> s2.6.2: 'organization' used to be required but could be empty - required
> if attributes are empty in refs.
It's not required.
> 2.12: Worth noting *not* in 'artwork' (true for all other ...refs.
Yes, but I believe we should change this in the future vocabulary.
> 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?
Per DTD yes. I have no idea why. We may want to check the published RFCs
> s220.127.116.11: [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.
> 18.104.22.168: Using the anchor in a <t> is problematic!
Setting it isn't problematic, but referring to it can be. That needs a
whole paragraph of text...
> [And it has an index!!]
More information about the rfc-interest