[rfc-i] Remove some requirements on element order
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:
the output is
(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