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

Nico Williams nico at cryptonector.com
Wed May 7 09:28:31 PDT 2014


On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 9:10 AM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman at vpnc.org> wrote:
> 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.

Huh?  How?  It says nothing about how boilerplate is to be rendered in
any output format.  It's only about what the boilerplate is (with just
two options).  It'd be better to have a <boilerplate> tag in <front>
and one in <back>.  Then boilerplate would be entirely configurable
and it would still say nothing about how it's rendered -- only that it
is to be rendered (unless it's empty).

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

Hmmm.  I think the only thing would be to allow the WG to be empty so
"NETWORK WORKING GROUP" is not rendered.

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

See my other post regarding different boilerplate for different
streams (e.g., IRTF vs. IETF).

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

No, draft name is useful in private settings.

> Why not make it explicit?

Sure.  But boilerplate should probably be first-class.

Nico
--


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list