[rfc-i] Comments on draft-hoffman-xml2rfc-06
paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Wed Apr 30 20:46:18 PDT 2014
As always, thanks. Comments below; other stuff is now in the pre-draft for -07.
On Apr 30, 2014, at 5:54 PM, Elwyn Davies <elwynd at dial.pipex.com> wrote:
> s2.5/s2.5.2: I am not sure where you would ever use the "alt" attribute
> since s2.5 envisages that the text content of the <artwork> is the 'alt'
> text for any graphics file. I suspect "alt" is now redundant.
This needs more discussion. I'll open a thread on it later.
> s2.7.3, "initials": I guess the spacing stuff was too much like
> formatting. Are we still allowed optional space in the string? (If only
> for backward compatibility!)
That's a question for the Style Guide and thus Heather, not me.
> s2.10/2.10.2: I am *still* not convinced that the cite attribute should
> be (always) a URI rather than a reference anchor. What is the
> justification? - I see there is supposed to be an example - and I don't
> understand what shape the value of the cite would be for an existing
I have a note to open a thread on this.
> s2.16: I am still not sure where the specification of a "vague date"
> would be provided since hard and limited specifications are provided for
> day/month/year. Could it be the content text if none of day/month/year
> are provided (but illegal for the document itself)?
Err, good question. I'll open this as an issue; it affects v2 as well.
> s2.16.2: I (still) don't see why the month can't be alternatively
> specified as a month number (possibly easier for non mother tongie
> authors). Your argument that this was a style issue doesn't seem to
> hold water, since the formatter can map from numbers just as easily if
> that is what the style requires.
I think I said it was an issue for the Style Guide. That is, take it up in a separate thread for that document and Heather, not this one and me.
> s2.21, <em>: Would it be better to call this <emph> to match with
> typical Tex usage (or is there some other prior art)?
It would probably be better to match what HTML users expect. I believe there are more of them than TeX users.
> Also does it
> *have* to be italic and therefore the same as <i>? Shouldn't this be
> 'typically italic' but left to the formatter to do it as it wants?
> Accordingly should <i> be allowed content in <em(ph)> (and vice versa)?
Yes; no; no. You are theoretically correct on the first one, but if it is not predictable, we will waste *huge* amounts of writers time arguing about it. Better to just be consistent.
[[ Same answers for <strong>/<b> ]]
> s2.61: With <list> it was possible to preempt the formatter's choice of
> symbol by using, e.g., style="format @" if the author felt the need to
> control the label. Should we provide (say) a "label" attribute to
> override the default?
So far, the answer is "no" for consistency sake. But the question keeps coming up.
More information about the rfc-interest