[rfc-i] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-hoffman-xml2rfc-07.txt

Paul Kyzivat pkyzivat at alum.mit.edu
Thu May 8 11:47:35 PDT 2014

On 5/8/14 2:03 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> 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
> support.
> Are you sure that it would actually be an improvement?

I think we can distinguish between the schema and the text that 
describes the meaning and use of the schema. I'm talking about the 
latter. It *might* be nice if the schema could be similarly structured, 
but it isn't essential.

The text describing the meaning and use of the schema should be written 
so as to best help the reader to understand.

If multiple elements share the same content model, and that model is 
non-trivial, then I think it will be helpful.

>> 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
> RFC says.
>> 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...

It doesn't help if you can't easily find it.

And even if you can find it, it isn't as good. The conversion to rfc may 
have introduced changes that should be preserved in the bis. So it would 
be necessary to get the comments from one file and the rest from 
another. that would be a pain.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list