[rfc-i] Alternatives to 'deprecated' in xml2rfc v3
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Tue May 6 15:04:40 PDT 2014
On 2014-05-06 22:38, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 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.)
I think the vocabulary should support creating "private" documents. If
this requires additions in the vocabulary in v3, we definitively should
Best regards, Julian
More information about the rfc-interest