[rfc-i] Private documents [was Alternatives to 'deprecated' in xml2rfc v3]
paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Wed May 7 09:37:25 PDT 2014
On May 7, 2014, at 9:28 AM, Nico Williams <nico at cryptonector.com> wrote:
> 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).
I was sloppy when I said "formatting"; I should have said "including text in".
>>>> And if there are other features we would like private documents
>>>> to be able to drop, we could add other 'noFoobar' attributes
> 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.
Instead of "include this boilerplate", it would be better to say "this is the type of output I want" and let the processor decide what to do about it.
More information about the rfc-interest