[rfc-i] Remove some requirements on element order

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Thu Jan 2 01:19:49 PST 2014


On 2013-12-17 09:40, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2013-12-17 09:18, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote:
>> On 2013/12/17 6:49, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>>> In v2, there are a few elements that require their sub-elements to be
>>> in a certain order even though that order isn't really needed by the
>>> XML processor. For example,<address>  requires the
>>> enclosed<postal>,<phone>,<facsimile>,<email>, and<uri>  elements be in
>>> exactly that order. Given that each sub-element has its own name, the
>>> order should not be important.
>>
>> There are several questions here:
>>
>>
>> 1) Is this the right and only order (of how these elements should appear
>> in (final) output), or do other orders make sense?
>
> The point here is that - AFAIU - processors ignore the element order
> here anyway.
> ...

In the meantime I verified that both xml2rfc.tcl and rfc2629.xslt ignore 
the element order; that is, even if the source says:

   <postal>
     <street>Hafenweg 16</street>
     <code>48155</code><city>Muenster</city>
     <country>Germany</country>
   </postal>

the output is

    Hafenweg 16
    Muenster  48155
    Germany

(I haven't tested v2 yet).

My conclusion is that this feature is currently defunct; furthermore, as 
it has been defunct forever we can't simply change the behavior now 
because it might lead to astonishing results.

Proposal: document that the element order is irrelevant, but think about 
something new that might address the original use case (properly 
formatted postal addresses).

Best regards, Julian


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list