[rfc-i] Update to the v3 format document: draft-hoffman-xml2rfc-01

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Wed Feb 12 11:47:10 PST 2014

On 2014-02-12 20:39, Ted Lemon wrote:
> Should <li> have an anchor attribute?   <t> appears to have it, and their significance in the document is analogous.

Almost everything should be allowed to have it.

(and yes, I'll come up with a separate list change proposal)

> I'm curious about this:
>     <list style="symbols">
>        <li>This is the first element with a bullet.</li>
>        <li>This is the second element with a bullet.
>           <t>This is part of the second element,
>           but it does not have a bullet</t></li>

You shouldn't be allowed to do that.

>        <li>This is the third element with a bullet.</li>
>     </list>
> Is it valid for the second <li> to contain two <t> elements instead of a text element and a <t> element?   If so, it might be preferable expressed that way, although I don't think there's anything wrong with allowing the above syntax in principle.

I think it's a sign of sloppy vocabulary design. We can support both 
inline elements (text, <xref>) and block elements (<t>), but why would 
we want to allow to combine them?

> I'm still reading, but I figured I'd ship these off so that you might see them and comment before the call.  Not that it's crucial.

Best regards, Julian

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list