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

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Tue Mar 18 11:29:05 PDT 2014


On 2014-03-18 19:23, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On Mar 18, 2014, at 10:50 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
>
>> 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".
>
> Correct, which is why I didn't say it. I said they "will be ignored", indicating that they will be ignored by processors.

No, they won't. It's up to the processor to decide what to do with them.

>>> symrefs
>>
>> Are the only allowable format in the style guide anyway.
>
> I wish you were correct, but where in draft-iab-styleguide-01 do you see that? And, even if it is part of the current Style Guide Draft, it is not enforced; see RFC 6892 and 6897.

You are right. I believe this should be enforced.

>>> toc
>>
>> Currently, the style guide requires the TOC.
>
> See my message to Andrew; this is not enforced.

Right now.

>>> tocdepth
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> ...that being said, I note that you didn't list "include" :-)
>
> Correct. Includes could be a security nightmare for the draft submission tool. If someone needs to do includes, they can use their own tooling to make that happen.
>
>>> 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.
>
> Um, why?

...because the outcome might affect our understanding of what these 
switches are used for, and how many we need.

Best regards, Julian



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list