[rfc-i] draft-hoffman-rfcexamples-04, "3. Example of a v3 Document"
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Mon Feb 29 07:56:20 PST 2016
On 2016-02-29 16:37, HANSEN, TONY L wrote:
> On 2/29/16, 1:19 AM, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
>> On 2016-02-29 04:55, HANSEN, TONY L wrote:
>>> I've looked at convertv2v3. The reference exists in the original v2 doc and is just preserved. That is, this is the entry in the v2 doc:
>>> <!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd" [
>>> <!ENTITY RFC2119 SYSTEM
>>> All of the ENTITY references are pulled out and changed to x:includes. Then the remaining DOCTYPE was then just left alone, with no special checks as to what DTD was being referenced.
>>> I guess I can add some code to check for this special case and remove the DTD entirely if it's an rfc2629.dtd reference.
>> Well, there are other cases that need to be considered. What would you map
>> <!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd" [
>> <!-- re-declare " " as code point 160 (non-breaking space) -->
>> <!-- you may need this for UAs that do not read external DTDs -->
>> <!ENTITY nbsp
>> " ">
> Right now, that DOCTYPE declaration would be passed through.
> After I add code to remove the reference to rfc2629.dtd, you would get:
> <!DOCTYPE rfc [
> <!-- re-declare " " as code point 160 (non-breaking space) -->
> <!-- you may need this for UAs that do not read external DTDs -->
> <!ENTITY nbsp
> " ">
> In other words, what is there would be preserved.
Looks good to me.
>> In general, how does the conversion treat Internal Entities defined in
>> the document to-be-converted? And how does it treat those defined by
>> rfc2629.dtd (and included files)?
> This is what my prototype conversion code does currently. Help would be appreciated.
> If you include a reference to an undefined entity, the code currently tries adding references to rfc2629-xhtml.ent rfc2629-other.ent, and &rfc.number; to whatever DOCTYPE is there, then reparses the file. If no DOCTYPE is present, it declares one with rfc2629.dtd.
> Based on this discussion, the reference to rfc2629.dtd should probably be changed to individual ENTITY declarations. I can insert a DOCTYPE without referencing rfc2629.dtd.
> One issue that should be noted is that &rfc.number; is internally pre-defined by the current XML2RFC processors that the RFC Production Center uses, and I don't think that functionality should be lost.
I believe it ought to be removed. It's a non-feature causing problems in
all proper XML tool chains.
The RFP is fully capable to change "this document" to "RFC ...." at
Best regards, Julian
More information about the rfc-interest