[rfc-i] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-hoffman-xml2rfc-07.txt
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Thu May 8 11:03:32 PDT 2014
On 2014-05-08 18:54, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
> 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.
It's possible, but a level of indirection by tooling currently does not
Are you sure that it would actually be an improvement?
> Maybe this was discussed before, but why are XML comments forbidden in
> the canonical format?
That's a very good question. I believe it would be sufficient to say
that comments are really just that: comments that do not affect what the
> 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.
I would hope that the RFC Production Center preserves the last version
before generating the canonical document as well...
Best regards, Julian
More information about the rfc-interest