[rfc-i] Review of draft-reschke-xml2rfc-00

Elwyn Davies elwynd at folly.org.uk
Fri Nov 8 11:44:31 PST 2013


I checked through the draft mainly using the knowledge that I gained in 

A few comments.. clearly a lot more to do.

s2.1: Note: No <...ref> elements in abstract.

s2.4: To the best of my knowledge area is not used anywhere.

s2.5.1.2: I never worked out what 'name' did.  Maybe something to do 
with filenames.

s2.5.1.3: Values 'abnf' - describe current effects.  Should also use 
'mib', 'pib', 'xml' and a default.

s2.5.1.5: The default for align used to be the same as the parent figure 

s2.6.2: 'organization' used to be required but could be empty - required 
if attributes are empty in refs.

2.12: Worth noting *not* in 'artwork' (true for all other ...refs.

2.13: Will need to explain the arcane rules on what is in a date.

2.13: Also in reference.

s2.17: Check: Are alt, height, width, src in both figure and artwork?

s2.20.1.2: [there is some inconsistency in documentation which uses 
sub-item instead of subitem.]

s2.27.1:  Note that processors are supposed to preserve the order of the 
elements in the contents.

2.34: Also mentioned in Contents. Using the anchor in a <t> is problematic!

[And it has an index!!]


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list