[rfc-i] [xml2rfc] use of sourcecode type

Paul Kyzivat pkyzivat at alum.mit.edu
Tue Jul 21 08:48:13 PDT 2020

On 7/21/20 11:10 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> A similar problem is giving examples that are intentionally bad in order to demonstrate a kind of error.

Good point.

> I typically tag them with a type that is derived from the one I would give for real code, e.g., “CDDLx” for a bad CDDL example.  I think it would be good to agree on some way to indicate this.

I agree that we should have some agreed upon way to do this.

Perhaps a "+xyz" suffix, with some agreed up xyz values.

> A related problem is that often several code blocks combine to one valid instance of CDDL, for example see Figure 1, 2, 3 in RFC 8428.  There is no way to say that Figure 1 and 2 combine into a valid instance, and so do Figure 1 and 3, but not any other combination.

I'm also interested in this. I believe an obvious solution to this is 
via the "name" attribute. All the ones with the same name should be 
gathered together.

A problem I have with both name and type is that they are invisible in 
the human readable formats. They provide semantic information that may 
be of interest to a reader. Perhaps they could be available in html via 
a popup?

> And, by the way, those type tags are conventionally lower-cased, but this is not made very explicit; you have to infer that from the list in Section 2.48.4 of RFC 7991 or the RFC editor’s updated copy of that list:

> https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/sourcecode-types.txt
> (Ha, this doesn’t even have “cddl” in it; I’m not sure how this is updated and whether there shouldn’t really be an IANA registry for these.)

For these to be useful for any sort of automated processing I think they 
should be standardized. I agree with an IANA registry.

If we wanted to allow unstandardized usage there could be X- prefixes, 
but we have banned those many other places.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list