paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Sun Feb 28 16:48:17 PST 2016
On 28 Feb 2016, at 10:34, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) wrote:
>> "Artwork is defined as anything marked by the XML >artwork< element
>> Section 2.5 of "The 'XML2RFC' version 3 Vocabulary"
>> Only the 'type=ascii-art' will be rendered within the plain-text
>> This marks figures drawn with ASCII characters."
>> That doesn't work. There are many other things that could be placed
>> <artwork>, and those will have to continue to work in the plain text
>> The type list in the v3 spec is not exhaustive, but even on that list
>> see "call-flow" and "hex-dump" which will have to continue to work.
> Hmm. Do you have any suggested language so I can better capture the
> intended meaning here?
That depends on the intended meaning. Julian points out that some things
on the current list could be rendered just fine in the plaintext output.
Some things on that list would not render at all in plaintext, and then
there's the whole issue of what to do with future additions to the list.
Does the list need to have two columns, one for the name and one for
"will be rendered in plaintext"?
>> "... In particular, the formatter will use the "submissionType",
>> "seriesInfo", "author", "address", "title", "reference",
>> "referencegroup", and "references" to build the front and back matter
>> 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 agree with Julian: this whole section can be removed. The plaintext
output is based on elements from the entire XML source file, not just
the ones listed.
More information about the rfc-interest