[rfc-i] Keeping some of the PIs from v2 in v3, but as an actual part of the grammar
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Tue Mar 18 10:50:03 PDT 2014
On 2014-03-18 18:32, Paul Hoffman 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.
PIs are "processing instructions", and by definition are not part of the
vocabulary. It makes no sense to say "they are ignored in the v3 format".
The TCL code supports a big set of PIs. Some of these are real
"instructions to the processor", some are not. I can only speculate why
they became PIs; probably because people did not want to touch the DTD.
> 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:
Adopting these IMHO should be the exception, not the rule.
...affects list styling, thus should be part of our improved list concept.
Optimizes vertical whitespace. We shouldn't need that.
Are the only allowable format in the style guide anyway.
Currently, the style guide requires the TOC.
The style guide should be clear about this; in that case we don't need a
...that being said, I note that you didn't list "include" :-)
> 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.
Let's first find out what we need.
Best regards, Julian
More information about the rfc-interest