[rfc-i] [xml2rfc] use of sourcecode type
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.
> 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
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
> 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:
> (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