[rfc-i] Alternatives to 'deprecated' in xml2rfc v3
Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Tue May 6 13:38:09 PDT 2014
On 07/05/2014 05:33, Dave Crocker wrote:
> The existing constructs are used and useful. They are not causing
> (significant?) damage.
> So reasons for removal look more like aesthetics than problems.
I am very used to YMMV features in xml2rfc; the absence of the PI
<?rfc topblock="no"?> in v2 is my problem this week*. So I don't
agree that this is all about aesthetics; if something is tagged as
'deprecated' or 'obsolete' or any other word of that nature, I will
avoid using it unless I have to, and I'll look for an alternative.
*The fact that PIs are not formally part of the grammar is
remarkably uninteresting to users.
However, the topblock="no" case does raise one question in my mind.
Are we clear that v3 has the generation of valid I-D and RFC formats
as its *only* goal? The statements in the Abstract and Introduction
of draft-hoffman-xml2rfc don't make this clear. Speaking as the
maintainer of http://www.ietf.org/about/process-docs.html, I need
clarity on this.
(The same is true of draft-reschke-xml2rfc, in fact.)
More information about the rfc-interest