[rfc-i] Few nits in draft-hoffman-xml2rfc-07

Elwyn Davies elwynd at folly.org.uk
Thu May 8 08:53:03 PDT 2014

Hi, Paul.

Had a quick look through the changes for -07.  Mostly looking good.
Just a few nits.

s1.2.4, 1st bullet: s/format/representation/

s2.16, para 2: s/formatter/processor/???

s2.17 (and subsections) <date>:  I am not convinced by the idea of
having alternative free-format options for month and year attributes.
Its messy - and if we *do* go this way the definitions of the attributes
have to be changed as they don't match with the 'vague' case.  I'd still
go with using the content for the vague case and leave the attributes
for the precise case.

s2.28: My inclination would be to keep the 'smaller' items together at
the front - so put the <alternateURI>(s) after <keyword>(s) rather than
at the end, but no big deal.

s2.32 <li>/s2.36 <ol>/s2.36.3, start attr: Ought to be explicit about
how we move along the list of style characters or generate the label
from the (internal) counter at each new <li>.  Are negative values
allowed for 'start'?  If not we should say so.

s2.47.10 outputType attribute: I think this is a usefule idea but I also
think a better name for this would be 'documentType' which avoids
confusion with the 'output representation' (and all document types can
appear in some or all output representations).  Other options are being
discussed I see.  

App C.1: I think there may be need/requirement for at least one XML
comment block at the start of the document but this is a discussion for
a different place.

*** The remainder are a few cases of format that might need to be

s6, para 2: s/formatter/processor/???

App B title: s/Format/Vocabulary (or maybe 'Representation' or

App B, para 3: s/format/syntax/

App B, last para: s/format/input representation (or maybe 'markup')/

App B.1, several places: s/format/input representation(or maybe

App C title and App D title: s/Format/Representations/


I support the <alternateURI>and its 'type' attribute.  DOI's show up
both as doi scheme and http scheme URIs (whether the latter should be
classed as doi type I am not sure but they have the same effect.

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list