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

Nico Williams 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
boilerplate

 - 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?)

Possible attributes:

 - standard -> value names standard boilerplate
 - link -> value is the URI of standard boilerplate

Anything else?

Any remaining objections?


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list