[rfc-i] draft-iab-rfc-plaintext-02

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Sun Feb 28 10:50:26 PST 2016

On 2016-02-28 19:34, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) wrote:
> ...
>> "Artwork is defined as anything marked by the XML >artwork< element (see
>> Section 2.5 of "The 'XML2RFC' version 3 Vocabulary" [I-D.iab-xml2rfc].
>> Only the 'type=ascii-art' will be rendered within the plain-text format.
>> This marks figures drawn with ASCII characters."
>> That doesn't work. There are many other things that could be placed into
>> <artwork>, and those will have to continue to work in the plain text
>> version.
>> The type list in the v3 spec is not exhaustive, but even on that list I
>> see "call-flow" and "hex-dump" which will have to continue to work.
>> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-iab-rfc-plaintext-02.html#rfc.section.5.p.1>:
> Hmm. Do you have any suggested language so I can better capture the
> intended meaning here?

I'm not even sure what the intention is. Is it to encourage use of 
<sourcecode> when applicable?

>> "... In particular, the formatter will use the "submissionType",
>> "seriesInfo", "author", "address", "title", "reference",
>> "referencegroup", and "references" to build the front and back matter of
>> the document."
>> This list is confusing. Why is front and back matter called out here?
> Because that's where there seemed to be confusion when this was
> discussed earlier this year on the design team and with the IAB about
> what xml tags would actually impact the plaintext output. Rather than
> rewrite the draft that had a great deal of "this tag does not apply" I
> worked with Robert to figure out what would be sensible to include.
> Do you have a proposal for different text?

I believe the whole section could be dropped without losing any useful 

Best regards, Julian

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list