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

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Wed May 7 13:35:03 PDT 2014


On 08/05/2014 05:12, Nico Williams wrote:
> On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman at vpnc.org> wrote:
>> On May 7, 2014, at 9:46 AM, Nico Williams <nico at cryptonector.com> wrote:
> 
>>> [...]  If you want standard boilerplate you say which (or if
>>> <boilerplate> is absent you get the most common choice).  [...]
>> 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>).
> 
> If not present then you'd get the standard boilerplate.  I.e., most
> users would never have to add <boilerplate standard=.../> to their
> drafts.

Yes, this approach is clean and meets the law of least astonishment, I
think. I'm not sure if 'standard' is the best attribute name, but
only because <boilerplate standard='none'/> looks a bit odd.

   Brian



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list