[rfc-i] Private documents [was Alternatives to 'deprecated' in xml2rfc v3]
paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Wed May 7 10:03:18 PDT 2014
On May 7, 2014, at 9:46 AM, Nico Williams <nico at cryptonector.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 11:37 AM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman at vpnc.org> wrote:
>> 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.
> What I had in mind was:
> <front> <boilerplate standard="IETF-..."/> ...
> <front> <boilerplate>... text ...</boilerplate> ...
> <front> <boilerplate/> ...
> See? If you want standard boilerplate you say which (or if
> <boilerplate> is absent you get the most common choice). If you want
> alternative, non-standard boilerplate, then you include it as a text
> node. If you want no boilerplate then you include an empty
> <boilerplate/> with no attributes naming a standard boilerplate.
The expected usage almost all the time is that the "standard" attribute is going to be the same for <front> and <back>. Your proposal seems like adding verbosity for an extreme edge case (the boilerplate setting will be different in <front> and <back>).
More information about the rfc-interest