paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Sun Feb 16 12:43:11 PST 2014
On Feb 16, 2014, at 8:34 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
>>> - add <note>, holding block level elements
>> That does in theory, but maybe not in practice. In your v2 draft, you point out that <note> currently is:
>> 2.24. <note>
>> Creates an unnumbered section that appears after the abstract.
>> It is usually used for additional information to reviewers (working
>> group information, mailing list, ...), or for additional publication
>> information such as "IESG Notes".
>> This element appears as child element of: <front> (Section 2.19).
>> Content model:
>> One or more <t> elements (Section 2.38)
>> Are you proposing that we make a breaking change so that <note> no longer causes a new section be created? That would be fine with me, but it goes against what you have been saying lately about backward-incompatible changes.
> Oops. OK, we'll need a different element name then.
Maybe. Or we could use the name that every document author would expect, namely "<note>", and break backwards compatibility for a feature that is almost never used in practice. I would prefer the former.
>> Works for me if others agree with the limitation that a citation has to be a URI, but nothing else.
> Do you have a use case where you don't have a URI reference?
Yes, definitely: an internal reference. In fact, I think that would be the most common use in RFCs: block quotes from RFCs that are already in the references.
More information about the rfc-interest