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

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?

> On Aug 14, 2020, at 3:42 PM, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca> 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 <cabo@tzi.org <mailto:cabo@tzi.org>> 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 <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> 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
>>> xml2rfc@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xml2rfc
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> rfc-interest mailing list
>> rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org <mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest>