Re: [rfc-i] Unicode in xml2rfc v3

>> 
>> <contact/> has only been added to <section/> (block-level) and <t/>, not to <li/>, which has its own copy of the content model of <t/>. There are a few more elements like <name/>, <blockquote/>, <dt/>, <dd/>, <xref/>, <cref/>, <tt/>, <strong/>, <em/>, <sub/>, <sup/>, <preamble/>, <postamble/>, <th/>, <td/>, <annotation/>, <refcontent/> that need this fix.
> 
> On the other hand it's not clear at all, whether *contact* information
> is needed in all of these places (I do agree with <li>, and there's
> already a ticket about that:
> <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc/trac/ticket/519>, opened
> seven months ago).

As long as (span level) <contact/> is our only way to have the name of a person:

<section><name>History: the <contact fullname=“Gössner”/> draft

<blockquote>We have implemented <contact fullname=“Gössner”/>’s original specification but ran into

<dt><contact fullname=“Gössner”/> interpretation:

<dd>This interpretation differs from the original proposal by <contact fullname=“Gössner”/> in that

<xref target=“https://goessner.net/articles/JsonPath/”>Original <contact fullname=“Gössner”/> draft</xref>

(Stopping here; similar obvious cases can easily be found for all the other elements.)

All these could occur in a future version of draft-goessner-dispatch-jsonpath or a similar document.

Proof by lack of imagination is rarely the best guidance :-)

Grüße, Carsten

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