IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [xml2rfc-dev] xml2rfc: use of <boilerplate> in preptool step

"Martin Thomson" <mt@lowentropy.net> Fri, 11 October 2019 06:37 UTC

Return-Path: <mt@lowentropy.net>
X-Original-To: xml2rfc-dev@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: xml2rfc-dev@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 801E3120091 for <xml2rfc-dev@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 23:37:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lowentropy.net header.b=pgeoqtEy; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=i5G8PCox
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 l2nQXE30OXZe for <xml2rfc-dev@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 23:37:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4620C12008B for <xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 23:37:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id A32E34FA for <xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 02:37:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from imap2 ([10.202.2.52]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 11 Oct 2019 02:37:27 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lowentropy.net; h=mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:from:to :subject:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=fm3; bh=BWz+d h7RoBTi7FDxr0ycDwh0BGz/VR8ZIsiAOsCz2fU=; b=pgeoqtEyZjlkmiAmC1Vqx /eIBu/VVEyhG79APB8P9s7KcVMOWqTFsrF7eGAHPl/KBNihOEnXCHNpZNgNUjEua Caa0vgbXgs3koenRimuorpVzF2I3MRg6qwi4WGt8mTiv9qk/cMMRywuHi6AEk0MF tXM57JBSVVTEHtllmo/axnximNWiXKjQ0xlm3lLEaIULOPtvN2A5qhH1X+VQcS6+ W3cZZxCAOVnWqGARPyaVgmucWEEJW5dq6QoYR4ed+FNjTXAuRV4nNAcoCsEsShm1 t/WalWc4H01t9FxiNu4oIbZrXXuQKlV4ID4jGe1FrltnRJTIf7TdiepP76EkO9y3 A==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=BWz+dh7RoBTi7FDxr0ycDwh0BGz/VR8ZIsiAOsCz2 fU=; b=i5G8PCoxyTaOpmr1DYnUaubWNur0RaM20os0QNJhrLzYpVjcN/WUajmud mqNzDHJkEuZJgyKJRwa4k2bxbbIkSxr/iQN+cYorzLjad0f0xQ2zP1+86iUEIJFH LvfhxoY3E+EsBoDrhur7X27TEZdygXTcPgdK8zF7q32k11Af9kOnUK8Q0kYjUQex UX4md2+1y0QKXdAy6lqKsiHHPkpZZjl3IGEF9GhYTZ9lrN2kCFpiEyxS7qgrHpjU 0nq7ICJTx0pMjj9UGhYckF64EgLVyeLMFVPm3DGe3bB0ea9KLLkZfKz2L5nN4yEE I9ZD6C7pncYYF5wlXXnWVCg5YbVVw==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:JiOgXT3Y7cdz_P49xmbZ8Da-dCAV1Tgh_6h2nFQBPfQHyyxxJPnt7A>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedufedrieeggdduudduucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefofgggkfgjfhffhffvufgtgfesth hqredtreerjeenucfhrhhomhepfdforghrthhinhcuvfhhohhmshhonhdfuceomhhtsehl ohifvghnthhrohhphidrnhgvtheqnecuffhomhgrihhnpeifihhkihhpvgguihgrrdhorh hgnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehmtheslhhofigvnhhtrhhophihrdhnvght necuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptd
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:JiOgXbhjtBWOr43KJi50vafbnrzf7Fck18VAjGTQE9rRSe8eHMwzuA> <xmx:JiOgXUsg6JxFnXEORsgcWyedsEzZQZUDxpmVw8GOZ6ipKLIgIpKddw> <xmx:JiOgXUJ3aIeDw17b6lwxVOOKbRBLOYRj3o3Js6CRDefeU1hpu-jUBA> <xmx:JyOgXSzoX8m36amu8ZQJ49pxPw9YE1bw0X5J1VLb_WnrvzzfbMcfvw>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id BFD40E00A5; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 02:37:26 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.1.7-360-g7dda896-fmstable-20191004v2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <4c8e3e4a-b7d8-4c49-a8b4-97435946b91d@www.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <6D64EA29-B4A3-4DF7-A5F0-1B6D4B83886D@rfc-editor.org>
References: <6e36282d-c6d2-6031-2002-e4bbc85b3fc0@gmx.de> <6D64EA29-B4A3-4DF7-A5F0-1B6D4B83886D@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2019 17:37:08 +1100
From: Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>
To: xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/xml2rfc-dev/0MGZJWn-xcLGJl4xyEtg1ZFDoGQ>
Subject: Re: [xml2rfc-dev] xml2rfc: use of <boilerplate> in preptool step
X-BeenThere: xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion about particulars of xml2rfc V3 design, development and code." <xml2rfc-dev.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/xml2rfc-dev>, <mailto:xml2rfc-dev-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/xml2rfc-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xml2rfc-dev-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xml2rfc-dev>, <mailto:xml2rfc-dev-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2019 06:37:29 -0000

On Thu, Oct 10, 2019, at 03:44, Heather Flanagan wrote:
> I feel fairly strongly that the final XML must be self-contained. While 
> someone can derive the TOC based in section headers, deriving details 
> is not as good as just have the thing available in one place. 

I'm struggling to understand this argument.  In what way does having a TOC in the XML make the document more self-contained?  It only seems to add redundancy, which only invites contradiction as far as I can see.  In my view, informed by long experience with DRY (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_repeat_yourself), derivations are always far more robust.

Removing the redundancy, all you have is a signal about the desired *location* of the TOC, but I don't see any value in encoding that information.

> You don’t agree. I get that. But I am insisting on this one. 

I get the appeal to authority bit (or assertion thereof really), but I don't think we should operate that way, and I hope that you don't expect us to accede to that either.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email