[rfc-i] Private documents [was Alternatives to 'deprecated' in xml2rfc v3]
nico at cryptonector.com
Wed May 7 17:04:00 PDT 2014
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Brian E Carpenter
<brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, this approach is clean and meets the law of least astonishment, I
I think so too :)
More than that, it's also general in just the right way without adding
too much verbosity or undue burden on tooling.
> think. I'm not sure if 'standard' is the best attribute name, but
> only because <boilerplate standard='none'/> looks a bit odd.
- if <boilerplate> is absent -> standard boilerplate for IETF
- if <boilerplate> is present but empty (i.e., lacks child text
nodes), and lacks the standard (or whatever) attribute -> no
- if <boilerplate> is present and empty, but has a standard (or
whatever) attribute -> you get the named boilerplate unless it doesn't
exist / isn't known, in which case you get an error
- if <boilerplate> is present and non-empty you get that text as the
boilerplate (or an error if the standard attribute is also set?)
- standard -> value names standard boilerplate
- link -> value is the URI of standard boilerplate
Any remaining objections?
More information about the rfc-interest