[rfc-i] Request for feedback: the new CSS
Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Fri Dec 2 14:37:23 PST 2016
On 03/12/2016 11:19, John Levine wrote:
>>>> 1. You have some embedded code fragments. Is it your intention that these will
>>>> still be visibly marked <CODE BEGINS> and <CODE ENDS>?
>>> As far as I know, those markings are optional, right?
>> Not exactly. And they aren't our choice - they are defined in the IETF Trust
>> legal provisions:
>>>>> License to Code Components.
>>>>> Identification. Text in IETF Contributions and IETF Documents of the types
>>>>> identified in Section 4.a above shall constitute “Code Components”. In addition,
>>>>> any text found between the markers <CODE BEGINS> and <CODE ENDS>, or otherwise
>>>>> clearly labeled as a Code Component, shall be considered a “Code Component”.
>> So regardless of what would be most elegant in XML2RFCv3, authors must be able
>> to include these labels explicitly.
> I see the phrase "or otherwise clearly labeled as a Code Component"
> which suggests to me that we don't have to use the ugly bracket things
> if the document says something like all the blocks of fixed pitch text
> are code components. They're still coded in the XML so mechanical
> extraction is no problem.
> For that matter, I'd argue that since the XML is the canonical format,
> the XML code markings clearly label the code and we're done.
Yes, that *ought* to be the case, but I would much prefer to see the Trust legal
provisions modified accordingly. It's going to be complicated enough persuading
lawyers and judges that XML is more canonical than plain text, without also
expecting them to re-interpret the Trust text as well.
More information about the rfc-interest