[rfc-i] date formats, Re: Few nits in draft-hoffman-xml2rfc-07

Elwyn Davies elwynd at folly.org.uk
Thu May 8 09:50:56 PDT 2014

Julian said...

> >>>
> >>> 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.
> > ...
> RFC 2629 is very incomplete.

Indeed - and Marshall's updated FAQ document duplicates it for <date>

> The V2 draft attempts to describe the vocabulary as it is implemented 
> *and* used, and vague dates *are* used in practice (like it or not).
Probably - although I can't produce an example off the cuff.

I'd be willing to go for a bit of clean up here in v3.  The rfcedstyle
and strict mode could handle the cleaner solution.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list