[rfc-i] Proposed way forwards on backward compatibility with v2

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Tue Feb 18 10:32:15 PST 2014


On 2014-02-18 19:20, Nico Williams wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat at alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>> If I had any hope of rendering useful UML diagrams in drafts, then I would
>> *prefer* not to manually convert them from a UML tool to some other drawing
>> tool for incorporation in a draft.
>
> I see no reason that <artwork> couldn't have an attribute (it already
> does, sort of) for describing the type of the artwork source, with

<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-xml2rfc-latest.html#element.artwork.attribute.type>

> xml2rfc using external converters (if available) to render.  It'd be
> nice too if <artwork> had an alternative representation attribute as
> well.

It can have a @src 
(<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-xml2rfc-latest.html#element.artwork.attribute.src>), 
in which case the inline artwork *is* the alternative representation.

Best regards, Julian



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list