[rfc-i] draft-iab-xml2rfc-03, "B.2.1 Overlapping Values"

[julian.reschke at gmx.de (Julian Reschke)]

On 2016-03-15 22:44, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) wrote:
> On 3/14/16, 3:55 PM, "rfc-interest on behalf of Julian Reschke" <rfc-interest-bounces at rfc-editor.org on behalf of julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
>
>
>
>> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-iab-xml2rfc-03.html#rfc.section.B.2.1>:
>>
>> ""pn" for all elements not listed above always has the format
>> "p-nnn-mmm", where "nnn" is the section number and "mmm" is the relative
>> position in the section. For example, this would be "p-2.1.3-7" for the
>> seventh part number in Section 2.1.3."
>>
>> I believe we need to enumerate which elements are numbered. For
>> instance, <iref> is not, right?
>
> Correct.  The editor's version of the preptool draft currently says:
>
> Add ?pn? attributes for all parts. Parts are:
> * <section>: pn=?s-1.4.2?
> * <references>: pn=?s-12? or pn=?s-12.1?
> * <abstract>: pn=?s-abstract?
> * <note>: pn=?s-note-2?
> * <boilerplate>: pn=?s-boilerplate?
> * <table>: pn=?t-3?
> * <figure>: pn=?f-4?
> * <artwork>, <aside>, <blockquote>, <dl>, <dt>, <li>, <ol>, <sourcecode>, <t>, <ul>: pn=?p-[section]-[counter]?
>
> (which needs to be fixed for boilerplate still)
>
>
> I'm not currently doing <dt>; should those start at one higher than their parent <dl>, or should we remove it from the list?

I think we first should agree on what the pn's are good for, and then 
define how they get inserted based on that usage.

Best regards, Julian