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

Heather Flanagan <rse@rfc-editor.org> Tue, 09 April 2019 17:34 UTC

Return-Path: <rse@rfc-editor.org>
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 DC425120331; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 10:34:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 h0TfWq3to09L; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 10:34:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.amsl.com (c8a.amsl.com [4.31.198.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3EEA3120049; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 10:34:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 464D71C38CD; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 10:34:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from c8a.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (c8a.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jzqOxAhalUfm; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 10:34:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.19.131.159] (unknown [8.46.76.53]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6F0621C3889; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 10:34:38 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Heather Flanagan <rse@rfc-editor.org>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (16E227)
In-Reply-To: <8cedc522-614c-039c-e550-8f5494ab040f@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2019 10:34:38 -0700
Cc: "HANSEN, TONY L" <tony@att.com>, Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@levkowetz.com>, "xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org" <xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org>, "xml2rfc@ietf.org" <xml2rfc@ietf.org>, "rfc-markdown@ietf.org" <rfc-markdown@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <308E0D17-7B84-4782-B17D-EE06EE80E6BE@rfc-editor.org>
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> <1DC0E053-509F-4531-9EAF-1A287FFA4ECD@att.com> <8cedc522-614c-039c-e550-8f5494ab040f@gmx.de>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfc-markdown/sgJsig-Q9jRa_1FSmVyPXreGC6g>
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 17:34:47 -0000


> On Apr 9, 2019, at 09:01, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> 
>> On 09.04.2019 17:37, HANSEN, TONY L wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Yes, but in that case the rendering depends on the RFC the reference
> appears in, not on the referenced document.
> 
> FWIW, it would be great if revisions to the style guide also defined a
> precise start date from which the rules apply.
> 
>> 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".

Hi all,

I’m discussing this with Sandy and Alice now; a response to the list may take a day or so as I’m traveling at the moment.

-Heather

>