[rfc-i] draft-iab-xml2rfc-03, "B.2.1 Overlapping Values"

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Tue Mar 15 14:59:23 PDT 2016

On 2016-03-15 22:44, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) wrote:
> On 3/14/16, 3:55 PM, "rfc-interest on behalf of Julian Reschke" <rfc-interest-bounces at rfc-editor.org on behalf of julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
>> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-iab-xml2rfc-03.html#rfc.section.B.2.1>:
>> ""pn" for all elements not listed above always has the format
>> "p-nnn-mmm", where "nnn" is the section number and "mmm" is the relative
>> position in the section. For example, this would be "p-2.1.3-7" for the
>> seventh part number in Section 2.1.3."
>> I believe we need to enumerate which elements are numbered. For
>> instance, <iref> is not, right?
> Correct.  The editor's version of the preptool draft currently says:
> Add “pn” attributes for all parts. Parts are:
> * <section>: pn=’s-1.4.2’
> * <references>: pn=’s-12’ or pn=’s-12.1’
> * <abstract>: pn=’s-abstract’
> * <note>: pn=’s-note-2’
> * <boilerplate>: pn=’s-boilerplate’
> * <table>: pn=’t-3’
> * <figure>: pn=’f-4’
> * <artwork>, <aside>, <blockquote>, <dl>, <dt>, <li>, <ol>, <sourcecode>, <t>, <ul>: pn=’p-[section]-[counter]’
> (which needs to be fixed for boilerplate still)
> I'm not currently doing <dt>; should those start at one higher than their parent <dl>, or should we remove it from the list?

I think we first should agree on what the pn's are good for, and then 
define how they get inserted based on that usage.

Best regards, Julian

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list