[rfc-i] Private documents [was Alternatives to 'deprecated' in xml2rfc v3]

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Tue May 6 17:28:10 PDT 2014


On 07/05/2014 10:04, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2014-05-06 22:38, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

...
>> 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
> do that.

The v1 PIs included

<?rfc topblock="no"?>
<?rfc private="whatever"?>

An experiment has showed me (to my surprise) that it's 'private'
that suppresses the I-D boilerplate; I'm not sure what 'topblock="no"'
really does. Anyway, it seems that the v2 processor ignores them,
or I am missing something obvious?

--- OK, what I'm missing is that topblock, header and footer
affect ASCII output, not HTML output. That is so 20th century. ---

I think a 'private' attribute for v3 might lead to endless
debate about what it means. How about 'noBoilerplate'?
And if there are other features we would like private documents
to be able to drop, we could add other 'noFoobar' attributes
accordingly.

     Brian







More information about the rfc-interest mailing list