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

Elwyn Davies elwynd at folly.org.uk
Thu May 8 09:22:20 PDT 2014


On Thu, 2014-05-08 at 17:58 +0200, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2014-05-08 17:53, Elwyn Davies wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> This is nothing new; it's the same thing in RFC2629 and v2.

Hmm.  That appears to be a piece of undocumented functionality
in/post-facto rationalisation of the existing tools.  Personally I
hadn't grocked that the <date> attributes weren't type checked in
References (only, presumably).  The older documents imply day/year
numbers and month names are what is expected. 
  
> 
> > 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.
> 
> So why do we need the type attribute then?

To make it clear that it really is a DOI without having to guess.

Regards,
/Elwyn
> 
> Best regards, Julian
> 



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list