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

Ted Lemon mellon at fugue.com
Tue Mar 18 10:50:54 PDT 2014


On Mar 18, 2014, at 1:45 PM, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat at alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> I suppose an alternative to 'toc' would be to have some heuristics for when a draft is sufficiently complex to benefit from a TOC. And 'tocdepth' could potentially be replaced by attributes on sections indicating that they should not be included in the TOC.

Another alternative, which I think is in keeping with my previous response, would be to just add <toc depth="3"> to the document at the appropriate location, if a TOC is in fact desired.



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list