Re: [rfc-i] <format> element

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Mon, 22 February 2021 08:22 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 localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBEBA3A0E66; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 00:22:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.648
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.648 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pc0a6RuI6fQ4; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 00:22:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5C0293A0E5D; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 00:22:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC606F407E0; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 00:22:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Delivered-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C971EF407E0 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 00:22:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Received: from rfc-editor.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rfcpa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id B_R8wlLmv4OG for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 00:22:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D5913F407DD for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 00:22:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.217.118] (p5089a828.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.137.168.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4DkZtZ5lLFzyRg; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 09:22:46 +0100 (CET)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <5b092e47-cac7-293b-46dc-405ba50f4eb0@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2021 09:22:46 +0100
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 635674966.168962-5324abbba3e3c704cc4d377afbf8e4c1
Message-Id: <38825725-775C-41B1-AFEE-4DF01EE622B5@tzi.org>
References: <03fab698-8c03-a5be-303b-cc6f5573f0c3@gmx.de> <83A120E5-A1A3-408B-97F6-046C9B0BF76B@tzi.org> <5b092e47-cac7-293b-46dc-405ba50f4eb0@gmx.de>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] <format> element
X-BeenThere: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions." <rfc-interest.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
Cc: "rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org" <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: "rfc-interest" <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

On 2021-02-22, at 09:16, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> 
> There's always <annotation> into which you can put any kind of prose.

OK, so you would put a couple of <eref>s there, with plain text that elucidates the link relationship.  (Was thinking of something closer to RFC 8288 here, but that is of course harder to format into text.)

(<eref> hasn’t been treated very well in previous versions of xml2rfc, so I tried to never use it.  Maybe it can emerge into its prime now…)

We could simply add <annotation> to <author> to solve that other problem…

Grüße, Carsten

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