[rfc-i] Reminder: xml2rfc v2 transition

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Sun Apr 6 13:36:48 PDT 2014


Tony,

On 07/04/2014 05:21, Tony Hansen wrote:
> On 4/5/14, 4:16 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> It might be helpful to remind the populace of the ways in
>> which v2 is more strict than v1. I also find that the web
>> service at http://xml.resource.org/ is a little inscrutable
>> about version numbers. It just says 'beta', and you have to
>> poke around a bit to determine that it's v2. Then the phrase
>> 'If you prefer to use the currently released version,...'
>> leads you to v1. That's plain wrong.
> 
> I reworked the page at xml.resource.org a bit. Hopefully it's a bit
> clearer now.
> 
> It's also now pointing at the current work being done on updating the v2
> language description and the proposals for the v3 language updates.

Thanks! That is much clearer.

I think the main issues in moving from v1 to v2 (or v1/strict) were:

ENTITY declarations must be inside <!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd"[   ]>

<list> </list> must be inside <t> </t>
(and other similar nesting restrictions)

Does not tolerate non-RFC ASCII characters

Needs <![CDATA[  ]]> for some artwork that didn't need it for v1.

    Brian


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list