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

[Henrik Levkowetz <[e-mail]>]

Hi Cullen,

On 2020-08-14 23:48, Cullen Jennings wrote:
> 
> Never-mind - I found 
> 

> https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/sourcecode-types.txt
> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/sourcecode-types.txt>
> 
> Not really sure how I supposed to find that. Could we rev the RFC to
> have the required information?

FWIW, xml2rfc's built-in information, available through '$ xml2rfc --man'
in the latest release and going forward, and online at 

   https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/xml2rfc-doc.html 

points at this URL for values for the <sourcecode> "type" attribute.


	Henrik
 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Aug 14, 2020, at 3:42 PM, Cullen Jennings <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Related to this, the RFC says "The RFC Series Editor will maintain a complete list of the preferred
>>    values on the RFC Editor web site
>> “
>> 
>> Does that list exist somewhere, I’m not finding it ?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jul 21, 2020, at 9:10 AM, Carsten Bormann <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> 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 <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 <[e-mail]> 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
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xml2rfc
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rfc-interest mailing list
>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest>
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
> 

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