[rfc-i] New Version Notification for draft-hoffman-xml2rfc-15.txt

julian.reschke at gmx.de (Julian Reschke) Sun, 01 February 2015 18:34 UTC

From: "julian.reschke at gmx.de"
Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2015 19:34:51 +0100
Subject: [rfc-i] New Version Notification for draft-hoffman-xml2rfc-15.txt
In-Reply-To: <54CDDE7D.5070308@gmx.de>
References: <20150109194426.30210.38594.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <F015CCDE-6EF4-4AB7-ACB3-C4FC9026BD6F@vpnc.org> <54CD24C1.20707@seantek.com> <90D68D65-BBF8-4A4E-B432-94C07813EE5F@vpnc.org> <54CD31FD.3070200@seantek.com> <54CDDE7D.5070308@gmx.de>
Message-ID: <54CE71CB.4060305@gmx.de>

On 2015-02-01 09:06, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2015-01-31 20:50, Sean Leonard wrote:
>> On 1/31/2015 11:32 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>>> On Jan 31, 2015, at 10:53 AM, Sean Leonard<dev+ietf at seantek.com>  wrote:
>>>> On 1/9/2015 11:49 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>>>>>> Name:        draft-hoffman-xml2rfc
>>>>>> Revision:    15
>>>>>> Title:        The 'XML2RFC' version 3 Vocabulary
>>>> Nits:
>>>> Section 3.7.1: 'style' attribute (for <spanx>)
>>>>
>>>> Currently:
>>>>
>>>>    Deprecated.  Instead of <spanx style="emph">, use <b> instead of
>>>>    <spanx style="strong">, use <i>; instead of <spanx style="verg">,
>>>> use
>>>>    <tt>.
>>>>
>>>> Should say:
>>>>
>>>>    Deprecated.  Instead of <spanx style="emph">, use <b> instead of
>>>>    <spanx style="strong">, use <i>; instead of <spanx style="verb">
>>>>    or <spanx style="vbare">, use <tt>.
>>> Fixed verg -> verb. I don't see vbare in the v2 syntax.
>>
>> vbare is/was in the xml2rfc v1 vocabulary. It mysteriously disappeared
>> from being mentioned in v2.
>
> Incorrect. Apparently you confuse "v1 vocabulary" with "whatever the TCL
> code accepted".
>
>> See, e.g.:
>> https://code.google.com/p/uri-templates/source/browse/trunk/spec/xml2rfc.tcl
>>
>> :
>>
>>
>> proc spanx_html {text style} {
>> set p 1
>> switch -- $style {
>> verb
>> - vbare { set e tt }
>> vemph { set e {tt em} }
>> vstrong { set e {tt strong} }
>> vdeluxe { set e {tt strong em} }
>> emph { set e em; set p 0 }
>> strong { set e strong; set p 0 }
>> default { set e {}; set p 0 }
>> }
>> ...
>
> What I call "v1" is what was defined in RFC 2629. What I document as
> "v2" is what was properly documented (in the DTD or the WIP RFC2629bis
> document) *or* interoperable between current implementations as of 2014.
> That's simply not the case for the "v-" styles.
> ...

And I just checked; among the ~1600 XMLs for which I have the AUTH48 
source, vbare was used exactly once -- in RFC6716 where it's abused to 
put a large hexdump into the spec.

Best regards, Julian