Re: [Xml-sg-cmt] Use of Reference elements in bibxml

[Robert Sparks <[e-mail]>]

On 2/4/22 11:23 AM, John R Levine wrote:
>> We had (I thought) an open question around the deprecation of 
>> <format> at 
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-levkowetz-xml2rfc-v3-implementation-notes-13#section-3.1.27, 
>> but I'm not finding a ticket (open or closed). Am I missing something?
>
> No, I think you're right, we never resolved it.
Was this a single issue from the draft that we missed, or do we need to 
scrape the draft again?
>
> I am of two minds about the fornat question.  On the one hand, we 
> publish in multiple formats and plan to do so indefinitely.
>
> On the other hand, this is a bibliography entry so it makes sense to 
> have one link to the info page, not try and guess what formats are 
> available. In practice you cannot tell what RFCs have what formats 
> without looking at the web site.  The entries in rfc-index.xml say 
> which ones are supposed to be there, but some are missing, and in 
> several cases there are two different PDFs (printout of the text, and 
> either a scan of a paper document or converted Postscript), so this is 
> another place where I don't think the benefit from the extra details 
> are worth it.  Sort of like the postal thing.
You're still thinking with RFC blinders on. The bibxml references for 
_drafts_ could be constructed pointing to all versions the datatracker 
knows about. Or it could point only to the datatracker's main page 
instead of the txt version of the document, but there's a lot of dissent 
in the community about what "real" customers of our products should see 
most easily.
>
> Regards,
> John Levine, [e-mail], Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
> Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
>