[rfc-i] <format> element

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Mon, 22 February 2021 07:24 UTC

Return-Path: <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E7F23A0CE3; Sun, 21 Feb 2021 23:24:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.187
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.187 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_HTML_ATTACH=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=gmx.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bMolbSjeJERY; Sun, 21 Feb 2021 23:24:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA6DC3A0CCA; Sun, 21 Feb 2021 23:24:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA05EF407B7; Sun, 21 Feb 2021 23:24:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Delivered-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1898F407B7 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Sun, 21 Feb 2021 23:23:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Authentication-Results: rfcpa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=gmx.net
Received: from rfc-editor.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rfcpa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9o-mdg8FMv2y for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Sun, 21 Feb 2021 23:23:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.18]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6DA6BF407B5 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Sun, 21 Feb 2021 23:23:54 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1613978638; bh=io5+upMMO3LmfAZL6Q3v7AzqTozHPDJRC1rqeyQzMZY=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:To:From:Subject:Date; b=WuV683ITwGU4KLCmLXB0mHjLUdW8y7OLbb5+NhyZSkN4lCNFSZd+uw+VbhS0RHoTM Rhuom4CrZHIRslY70RFDJ4JqnbL1nmqpTGVcwe0n284Te5LssTyxazMUUDhUsSK2eQ 2XdS+DLe5BpNPb/35Bfpju+f/HOZdrnUM7ZZdawM=
X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c
Received: from [192.168.178.182] ([91.61.48.1]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx004 [212.227.17.190]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1M6llE-1lCPY33dq2-008LDc for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 08:23:58 +0100
To: "rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org" <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Message-ID: <03fab698-8c03-a5be-303b-cc6f5573f0c3@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2021 08:23:55 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------B34896FE138DCF86E10FC1EE"
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:g0brFxI3diYNR1pkHsyvaYcXHdU+kS0D6ugfWAQZuo2aL67Dr+s zSFzeq63T8cXdcEaWqF098ZW/KdYjEM7bfUHQ7i/ntnoVxc4zn/Sf2iunc034I4eOTYa1HQ +8XffdZGAGTt3HLods7x+phezSWJAFcPnsQXqXv3D1JtvaRthkibL6ssUGcGwZ51yxohIWs Pjwaws0WNexGPKYvWvusQ==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:EMfGTPMirAk=:2QIzYnRqpuVGBxZZliNo9x GTwo7rvIO4vormbVCnLUGCKuPbbCcwXYVv4frz5I7mDn4DSRcbVQpubIk69t2o+MqHsgbZQdE xvCtteESUJhBfyet9TDAcLgXM9AP5qO+aX+HI2sif9AoOAF1eImtw0ZtzNtB8OeKZGooRPBzt CjU8BTWbXtMvulvjiTrv3iEhkvtPnxMO/d4WtQo8IeeMm3GNdOdhnyAm9aL8M0B7vyIjEZMtT Va/wr0eH4MFNb6cMNhhwo9fu+6UNGQwuwl9XCK/2mNkdn4oE/GFjoLzdvGC2PX86imOaWyccD Bq7mZi9zo2DXebxUxrqshv0fr+ppunG68rb2fMBN7b9ES0qUDUAAagTzdeAeqPA5VH8fQztTc rFiRMvelgYpebdnwYOLmr6DtmNg5hsEK739JjqYHz4VgetW0bALM3C7cysXXTLsnTYkkPgvX1 zuXIYdad6EtRaRNjwVJzdlKzUUWBkwvz04FeKouGuFg9/Af85aXMlD9rsHMIvK0Z2EhNFfnng H5kOvgkHE859pzECrqb+ETQscqJO9A1u5qcHIVFuBTkqstuLVJwyrWDWfhRuLKNgp8dHD/JdK QzPotxewH+Znsj/Fdp85L/I3zb5nlJaUlRehqn7d+xl8YXzsxAD10AWJcLT6m1UArMAvpwX3a Lw9eLHEOjkaA8jdy9vyO60F012l8rvxVPWdZBRIvAHSSFvoFCJkYn0vvgp3EqPHGRDCn2T4b0 ygaEsvfENoCZ20kGji8ViN4xPDbDdLF3f4PH5hXG9sG+EarrkVyzLmZ9fyxUGx++4Mt2is4l3 x7zoaeGPjIpTT2WwFo71WCUksp17mxjaz6zyQOiAkids0UJRiw6Ux9TLgG3J6gH5xY3/m7huo ITx3j9nqFSskBC5Hcs6Q==
Subject: [rfc-i] <format> element
X-BeenThere: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions." <rfc-interest.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: "rfc-interest" <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

So I did a few tests with the <format> element, documented in
<https://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc7749.html#element.format> and
<https://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc7991.html#element.format>.

(test input and output attached)

Observations:

1) xml2rfc v1's text output ignores <format> and uses @target when
present to add the URI to the end of the reference.

2) xml2rfc v1's HTML output uses @target when present to hyperlink the
doc title. When absent, it uses <format> instead, if there is a single
one. If there are multiple ones, they are all added to the end of the
reference.

3) xml2rfc current, in v2 mode, ignores <format>.

4) xml2rfc current, in v3 mode, uses the *first* <format> element as a
fallback for a missing @target attribute, otherwise ignores <format>
completely.

5) rfc2629.xslt igores <format>

6) xml2rfc''s prep-tool format preserves <format>, which is a bug
according to
<https://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc7998.html#rfc.section.5.6.6>.

Recommendations:

a) Public IETF <reference> resources should not use <format> at all.

b) xml2rfc's preptool should be fixed to remove those.

c) xml2rfc's v3 output mode should be fixed to ignore those.

Best regards, Julian
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest