IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Rfc-markdown] [xml2rfc] initials handling, was: New xml2rfc release: v2.22.3

"HANSEN, TONY L" <tony@att.com> Tue, 09 April 2019 15:37 UTC

Return-Path: <tony@att.com>
X-Original-To: rfc-markdown@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rfc-markdown@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1460120881; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 08:37:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.237
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.237 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_DYNAMIC=1.363, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 nnHQ6rZlB7ja; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 08:37:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com [67.231.149.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5524F120883; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 08:37:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0049295.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0049295.ppops.net-00191d01. (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x39Fb7F1022971; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 11:37:15 -0400
Received: from alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (sbcsmtp7.sbc.com [144.160.229.24]) by m0049295.ppops.net-00191d01. with ESMTP id 2rrwna9hp7-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 09 Apr 2019 11:37:14 -0400
Received: from enaf.aldc.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x39FbDrc029382; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 11:37:13 -0400
Received: from zlp27126.vci.att.com (zlp27126.vci.att.com [135.66.87.47]) by alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x39Fb69f029208 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 9 Apr 2019 11:37:07 -0400
Received: from zlp27126.vci.att.com (zlp27126.vci.att.com [127.0.0.1]) by zlp27126.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTP id C6CBB4030701; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 15:37:06 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from MISOUT7MSGHUBAE.ITServices.sbc.com (unknown [130.9.129.149]) by zlp27126.vci.att.com (Service) with ESMTPS id B1E384013FA0; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 15:37:06 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from MISOUT7MSGUSRCG.ITServices.sbc.com ([169.254.7.7]) by MISOUT7MSGHUBAE.ITServices.sbc.com ([130.9.129.149]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 11:37:06 -0400
From: "HANSEN, TONY L" <tony@att.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@levkowetz.com>, "xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org" <xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org>, "xml2rfc@ietf.org" <xml2rfc@ietf.org>
CC: "rfc-markdown@ietf.org" <rfc-markdown@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [xml2rfc] [Rfc-markdown] initials handling, was: New xml2rfc release: v2.22.3
Thread-Index: AQHU7s57jZymUoPOukizmlUdNZhXeaYz9o2A
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2019 15:37:04 +0000
Message-ID: <1DC0E053-509F-4531-9EAF-1A287FFA4ECD@att.com>
References: <E1hDSIW-0008DY-Hl@durif.tools.ietf.org> <c8d8c9e9-88dd-8c49-c1d4-e0438c56a03c@gmx.de> <f41d8ba2-7078-0ffa-3e41-6f8bc1d0f766@levkowetz.com> <dfcbd237-bbff-867d-b704-cb874c4b2ed3@gmx.de> <b760846d-5183-ad8a-dd42-62a7800bdbf6@levkowetz.com> <561D7097-7155-4DDD-8C5D-FA65663B5105@att.com> <280b0cf8-a7d0-0334-42fe-a9cd6e7966d7@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <280b0cf8-a7d0-0334-42fe-a9cd6e7966d7@gmx.de>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.210.12.90]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <483AEC914C4EE24E8911F17CB0CDB018@LOCAL>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-04-09_07:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1904090098
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfc-markdown/9WwHDzd-OFupGs7tgKKsN8UaB6k>
Subject: Re: [Rfc-markdown] [xml2rfc] initials handling, was: New xml2rfc release: v2.22.3
X-BeenThere: rfc-markdown@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "rfc-markdown is a discussion list for people writing I-Ds and RFCs in Markdown and the authors of the tools used for that." <rfc-markdown.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rfc-markdown>, <mailto:rfc-markdown-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rfc-markdown/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfc-markdown@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfc-markdown-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-markdown>, <mailto:rfc-markdown-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2019 15:37:20 -0000

On 4/9/19, 8:19 AM, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:

    On 09.04.2019 14:11, HANSEN, TONY L wrote:
    > ...
    > How is the requirement to generate a single initial communicated within the XML? By looking at the RFC number? Or by a different attribute specified somewhere? While using the RFC number might seem simpler, I think it's better to be transparent and use an attribute.
    > ...
    
    Yes.
    
    But we really should ask the RFC Editor whether they are sure about
    this. After all, it seems to be a violation of the style guide:
    <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7322#section-4.8.6.2>. 

For re-rendering old RFCs that were originally written using a previous style guide? The interesting thing about style guides is that they do change over time.

I know that we've had various means of doing these stylistic machinations through the years, such as code that says "if rfc number < some value, do this special stylistic processing" or "if public date is before some value, do this special stylistic processing ". The reason I asked my question was that I don't know how the current V3 code is making its decisions for these stylistic issues. My suggestion above is that instead of having code like that, it should instead be "if some <rfc> attribute is set, do this to the initials". 

	Tony

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email