[rfc-i] draft-iab-xml2rfc-03, "2.11 <boilerplate>"
pkyzivat at alum.mit.edu
Mon Mar 14 15:06:32 PDT 2016
On 3/14/16 2:16 PM, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) wrote:
> On 3/13/16, 11:34 AM, "rfc-interest on behalf of Paul Kyzivat" <rfc-interest-bounces at rfc-editor.org on behalf of pkyzivat at alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>>> Yes, but with the caveat of potential requests for change from the IETF
>>> Trust or the IAB. I don't anticipate that happening any time soon, but
>>> remember that the IAB, as per 5741 and its successors, own the Status
>>> portion and can request it be moved. Similarly, the Trust can change the
>>> copyright info (but won't unless there is a good reason to do so).
>> This raises an interesting question:
>> What does that mean then it is the xml that is authoritative, not for
>> formatted documents? In principle the positioning of these elements
>> could be changed by formatters. If so, when the rules change, will the
>> changes only apply to documents published after the change, or should
>> they apply retroactively to older documents when they are reformatted?
> Requested changes can only be applied to documents published after the change. Otherwise, there is no way for the authors to agree to them. If the IESG or the Trust feels really strongly about the change, a new document can always be published that obsoletes the previous document and includes the new boilerplate, same as for the .txt-based stream today.
That seems reasonable. How will that be managed? Doesn't there need to
be something that correlates the xmL with the formatters that can be
used to render it?
IOW, if the IAB made such a change in the future, will the subsequent
xml be tagged accordingly, with the formatters being sensitive to such tags?
More information about the rfc-interest