[rfc-i] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-hoffman-xml2rfc-07.txt
pkyzivat at alum.mit.edu
Thu May 8 09:54:20 PDT 2014
Just a few comments on -07:
Sections 2.18 and 2.32 both have similar and very complex content
models. (I didn't compare to see if they are actually identical.) And a
fairly long subset is also shared with several other content models.
IMO it would be better if such reused content models were defined once
and referenced. That way people don't need to treat them as things that
need to be learned separately.
Maybe this was discussed before, but why are XML comments forbidden in
the canonical format?
I often use comments to provide info of relevance to those editing the
document. While these may become less useful when the document becomes
an RFC, they could be useful again in the future if a bis version of the
RFC is to be generated.
More information about the rfc-interest