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

Martin Thomson mt at lowentropy.net
Wed Jul 22 18:37:35 PDT 2020

In rust documentation, there is a flag for example code that says "this code is invalid".  That is separate from the (implied) type.

I don't see it being necessary to fix the "this is invalid, but it is if you add it to this other thing".  But that might be fixed with an excerpt flag that says "this is an excerpt (from X?) and therefore not valid on its own".

As for IANA maintaining a registry of types, sure.  I had no idea that this was a thing until the tls-syntax tag was added by the editor to one of my drafts.

On Wed, Jul 22, 2020, at 01:10, 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.
> 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.
> 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.)
> Grüße, Carsten
> > On 2020-07-21, at 16:36, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat at alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > 
> > I have a question about specification of type in sourcecode elements:
> > 
> > In RFC4566bis there are many examples that have fragments of SDP. But they aren't compliant to SDP syntax, since it requires that many things be present - that are intentionally omitted from these examples.
> > 
> > Is it valid to tag these with type="SDP"?
> > 
> > (In sip we had a similar problem. There is a mime-type message/sip, but we sometimes also return fragments of sip in error messages. We ended up defining a separate message/sipfrag mime-type for this.)
> > 
> > 	Thanks,
> > 	Paul
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > xml2rfc mailing list
> > xml2rfc at ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xml2rfc
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list