IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rfc-i] Updates to RFC XML

John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Mon, 09 May 2022 18:38 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 ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A6BAC15E3E9 for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 May 2022 11:38:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1652121534; bh=5KF3WLD5l+X8VIe6ZlDvu8R+sD370u3J0iaXoCQmre4=; h=Date:From:To:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe; b=i9wpN/ipvTg9agHNtGrhBmSFuf9rsqSVtOYvh6iPPk4FLycwbq6y354VbY4poayAk FQ7Z7vkz/YtJ8wcu+CL6W+GVtK02KZ5LAVBZkFTg9IJ+tY5s885wm8DmXyci3dN0ZJ /fVSlVrXpgwX2T7eACR/zHp5UX6KtdSTUlHvYrE8=
X-Mailbox-Line: From rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org Mon May 9 11:38:54 2022
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D816C157B54; Mon, 9 May 2022 11:38:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1652121534; bh=5KF3WLD5l+X8VIe6ZlDvu8R+sD370u3J0iaXoCQmre4=; h=Date:From:To:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe; b=i9wpN/ipvTg9agHNtGrhBmSFuf9rsqSVtOYvh6iPPk4FLycwbq6y354VbY4poayAk FQ7Z7vkz/YtJ8wcu+CL6W+GVtK02KZ5LAVBZkFTg9IJ+tY5s885wm8DmXyci3dN0ZJ /fVSlVrXpgwX2T7eACR/zHp5UX6KtdSTUlHvYrE8=
X-Original-To: rfc-interest@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rfc-interest@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FDA6C157B54 for <rfc-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 May 2022 11:38:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=HXHKV3+q; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=Qj94Z0ke
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z73tKmkSPsyg for <rfc-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 May 2022 11:38:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 38C6BC159A3F for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 9 May 2022 11:33:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 13258 invoked from network); 9 May 2022 18:33:14 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type; s=33c8.62795e6a.k2205; bh=fAOQwQzITIaqmQw+e5p2PfSHVWgydidmJ949SNs5gCc=; b=HXHKV3+q5lKvQpuudaV7OiTBJqdtRb3/ofEWOBl5OTVeNkpY08Ayj/DDsQ97NT89Duwc/PtBl69luyyf0FAi0Dx18hx+NwFfidEvZ/uOc5fKMeRIHShzxq7AzHJj/PPaIsz9+uv4a6uekiaYodDc/9tvr6F6K3I5FOpg1ZycxyGu2076KMZUQlWiRO9CxWDwrnx2IlPHhpxIcU40S3/Q3K7SYqiQxanf/eeDlO1Z9IdGiYF1plmDYxT+A+gB6ZAFAI+AdAnFA3JGlHF51UOXOLGelhTdg36bHv5hjYfkNKdk5n5J6igTVo4ZZ31duZ3nEAqrCudF1V+m1wFcOZ+WZQ==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type; s=33c8.62795e6a.k2205; bh=fAOQwQzITIaqmQw+e5p2PfSHVWgydidmJ949SNs5gCc=; b=Qj94Z0kePivbPZd9dxnrHdOqU0lIWcW+I1aDXObM8PtiwsMaplQQKrBho5zwJQCc9Hqb8g+aMs4IZSE6xd4/0Hej5Dp1yHRdLlbm6epZGrO2ilpBfbV4xvTpxx+ws79yty4LUZHk7U/siCVjwN35J/sgnv6cbr4ao6XFUG0wXTSfx8k2Aaw+XHEdKPj5cE2WOy2lsjAnlK7et+fW+6YxW85anhU6fh1NNc3K/0gKLkTNEoZjLU8FNV33HBS3fhU4PWtGv3zeDMJsKs1dM7pJfcffNZwDdH+i2aL+mRn8Q/1DePYg7O9IDtD6ZTJAX+zu4jEuk+ATp4xvJs9SG0yMzg==
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.3 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD) via TCP6; 09 May 2022 18:33:13 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 5F06B3FAA8F6; Mon, 9 May 2022 14:33:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ary.qy (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06F153FAA8D8 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 9 May 2022 14:33:13 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 09 May 2022 14:33:12 -0400
Message-ID: <4b0ec368-5afe-6ed3-a780-dc009a60cae8@taugh.com>
From: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-X-Sender: johnl@ary.qy
In-Reply-To: <a58d8a81-55c6-ed17-265f-e2e8d616d7b8@taugh.com>
References: <a58d8a81-55c6-ed17-265f-e2e8d616d7b8@taugh.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfc-interest/Oqzu0cP-Sdz_9UTyQHMUtilFXpg>
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Updates to RFC XML
X-BeenThere: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions." <rfc-interest.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rfc-interest/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

Well, that was cryptic.

Here's the coding changes I'd like to make to published RFCs so they 
better match the final v3 spec.

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.

<postal> element, replace the current complex format that needs an 
abandonware library to render with a list of <postalline> and <country> at 
the end.

<link> elements in the XML are quite unlike what RFC7991 specified and 
instead are almost but not quite compatible with HTML weblinks.  I would 
prefer to put them back the way 7991 says, or failing that, make them 
entirely compatible with weblinks.  In the rendered HTML, the links are of 
course weblinks, this is about the

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.

R's,
John


On Mon, 9 May 2022, John R Levine wrote:

> postal
> docName
> link
> toc

_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email