[rfc-i] Keeping some of the PIs from v2 in v3, but as an actual part of the grammar

Phillip Hallam-Baker hallam at gmail.com
Tue Mar 18 10:36:44 PDT 2014


Lets kill toc and tocdepth for a start.

People can choose to use them or not in other documents they produce in
XML2RFC. But providing a TOC should not be a choice in an ID or RFC, it
should be a requirement.




On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 1:32 PM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman at vpnc.org> wrote:

> Greetings again. In the v3 format, XML PIs (processor instructions) will
> be ignored. However, there are some PIs in v2 that are probably useful in
> v3, mostly for Internet Drafts but a few for producing the non-canonical
> representations.
>
> A hopefully-complete list of v2 PIs are at <
> http://xml.resource.org/authoring/README.html#anchor6>. Many of the PIs
> on that list are of very marginal value, and given that few people knew of
> them, can probably be ignored for v3. Some of them are actively harmful for
> v3, such as those that would suppress valuable information in the
> non-canonical representations. I believe that the following list could be
> of value in v3:
>
> compact
> inline
> sortrefs
> subcompact
> symrefs
> toc
> tocappendix
> tocdepth
>
> These could be added as new attributes in the <rfc> element, or could be
> attributes in an new element that is a child to <rfc>; the former seems
> easier and not onerous.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> --Paul Hoffman
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>



-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20140318/7ef0f7e5/attachment.html>


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list