[rfc-i] New version of the v2 and v3 examples draft
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Wed Jan 21 07:52:31 PST 2015
On 2015-01-21 16:36, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On Jan 21, 2015, at 7:02 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
>> OK, it might be correct according to the draft,
> It is. That is, Tony is correct and Julian's "No" is wrong.
>> but it *is* awful.
> And yet you have not proposed anything better...
>> Let's find a solution that is less weird. A seriesInfo where "value" is empty doesn't make any sense; it's a hack.
> It makes sense and is a hack.
> Other designs are welcome. However, before you propose one, remember that you need to change both <front> and <seriesInfo>, and that you need to think about the fact that in references, we know the status of the document, but in Internet Drafts, we don't.
Do we need this information inside a <reference>? I believe the answer
The draft currently say:
> ...Another <seriesInfo> element determines
> the "maturity level" (see Section 4 of [RFC2026]), using values of
> "std" for "Standards Track", "bcp" for "BCP", "info" for
> "Informational", "exp" for "Experimental", and "historic" for
> "Historic". The "name" attributes of those multiple <seriesInfo>
> elements interact as described in the section on <seriesInfo>.
...where seriesInfo doesn't seem to define this interaction.
We previously had that information as "category" attribute; why can't we
just leave it there? What am I missing?
(I'm ok with deprecating things where we actually have something better,
but abusing <seriesInfo> doesn't sound like an improvement to me)
Best regards, Julian
More information about the rfc-interest