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

Paul Hoffman paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Wed May 7 07:10:28 PDT 2014

On May 6, 2014, at 10:32 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:

> On 2014-05-07 02:28, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> I think a 'private' attribute for v3 might lead to endless
>> debate about what it means. How about 'noBoilerplate'?

Because that's about formatting the output, not defining the input.

>> And if there are other features we would like private documents
>> to be able to drop, we could add other 'noFoobar' attributes
>> accordingly.


A private processor can do whatever it wants with the input if it knows that the document being processed is for private use.

> I wonder whether this could be simply triggered by specifying neither rfc# nor draft name?

Why not make it explicit?

--Paul Hoffman

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list