[rfc-i] Keeping some of the PIs from v2 in v3, but as an actual part of the grammar

Paul Kyzivat pkyzivat at alum.mit.edu
Tue Mar 18 10:45:01 PDT 2014

On 3/18/14 1:36 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> Lets kill toc and tocdepth for a start.
> People can choose to use them or not in other documents they produce in
> XML2RFC. But providing a TOC should not be a choice in an ID or RFC, it
> should be a requirement.

I disagree.

Some documents are very short, and the TOC is just distracting.

And in large documents, controlling tocdepth is important to getting a 
TOC that is useful.

I suppose an alternative to 'toc' would be to have some heuristics for 
when a draft is sufficiently complex to benefit from a TOC. And 
'tocdepth' could potentially be replaced by attributes on sections 
indicating that they should not be included in the TOC.


> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 1:32 PM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
> <mailto:paul.hoffman at vpnc.org>> wrote:
>     Greetings again. In the v3 format, XML PIs (processor instructions)
>     will be ignored. However, there are some PIs in v2 that are probably
>     useful in v3, mostly for Internet Drafts but a few for producing the
>     non-canonical representations.
>     A hopefully-complete list of v2 PIs are at
>     <http://xml.resource.org/authoring/README.html#anchor6>. Many of the
>     PIs on that list are of very marginal value, and given that few
>     people knew of them, can probably be ignored for v3. Some of them
>     are actively harmful for v3, such as those that would suppress
>     valuable information in the non-canonical representations. I believe
>     that the following list could be of value in v3:
>     compact
>     inline
>     sortrefs
>     subcompact
>     symrefs
>     toc
>     tocappendix
>     tocdepth
>     These could be added as new attributes in the <rfc> element, or
>     could be attributes in an new element that is a child to <rfc>; the
>     former seems easier and not onerous.
>     Thoughts?
>     --Paul Hoffman
>     _______________________________________________
>     rfc-interest mailing list
>     rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org <mailto:rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org>
>     https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
> --
> Website: http://hallambaker.com/
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list