Re: [rfc-i] Updates to RFC XML

[Robert Sparks <[e-mail]>]

On 5/9/22 4:47 PM, John Levine wrote:
> It appears that Julian Reschke  <[e-mail]> said:
>>> In the <rfc> element, make the docName attribute the name of the RFC,
>>> e.g., "rfc9999" rather than the draft it used to be.  The draft name is
>>> available in a <link> element.
>> I would prefer to restore the number attribute defined in 7749 (and the
>> sibling attributes).
> I gather that means you can have docName or number but not both?  I wouldn't
> be opposed to that but I don't know what that would break.  Also, which
> sibling attributes?
I would prefer a future where all documents in this grammar have a name 
in one place that can be simply retrieved, not one that requires a bunch 
of conditional logic to compute.
>
>>> Remove the generated <toc> element in prepped XML.  It's not used when
>>> rendering the document (xml2rfc scans the section headers), takes up
>>> space, and is confusing.  The TOC in rendered text, HTML, and PDF would
>>> be unaffected.
>> Absolutely. And please remove related atrocities, like <author> as child
>> element of <section>.
> Do any published RFCs have <author> in <section>?  I'm trying to limit this
> to changes we can do mechanically so we don't have to hand edit and proofread
> a thousand documents again.  I suppose I could check easily enough but you
> can probably write the xslt faster than I can write the python.
>
> R's,
> John
>
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
[e-mail]
https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest