[rfc-i] Reminder: xml2rfc v2 transition
tony at att.com
Sun Apr 6 18:15:31 PDT 2014
On 4/6/14, 4:36 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 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"[ ]>
I think this falls under the category of only accepting "valid XML".
> <list> </list> must be inside <t> </t>
> (and other similar nesting restrictions)
> Does not tolerate non-RFC ASCII characters
I'm not sure I understand this item.
> Needs <![CDATA[ ]]> for some artwork that didn't need it for v1.
I think this also falls under the category of only accepting "valid XML".
More information about the rfc-interest