Re: [xml2rfc-dev] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-levkowetz-xml2rfc-v3-implementation-notes-09#section-3.1.20

[Heather Flanagan <[e-mail]>]

> On Oct 29, 2019, at 11:09 AM, Julian Reschke <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> ...see also
> <https://github.com/rfc-format/draft-iab-xml2rfc-v3-bis/pull/107>, which
> I believe is misguided.
> 
> 
>> 3.1.20.  In Section 2.46.2, "numbered" Attribute
>> 
>>   The text indicates that only top-level sections may have
>>   numbered="false", and that a section with numbered="false" may not
>>   have a child section with numbered="true".  But that leaves no value
>>   that is valid for child sections of an unnumbered section: They
>>   cannot have numbered="false", since they are not top-level sections,
>>   and they cannot have numbered="true", since the parent has
>>   numbered="false".
> 
> That is correct, but very easy to fix by saying that numbering is
> inherited from the parent section.
> 
>>   Additionally, the prohibition against child sections having
>>   numbered="false" removes the option of truncating the ToC listing for
>>   some child sections; without providing a good explanation for this
>>   limitation, it seems arbitrary and counter-intuitive to disallow this
>>   feature.
> 
> That doesn't make any sense - the presence in the ToC does not depend on
> numbering at all. To control the ToC, we already have
> <https://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc7991.html#element.section.attribute.toc>.
> 
>>   Proposal:  Permit sections which are not top-level sections to have
>>      numbered="false".
>> 
>>   Implementation:  In The current version of xml2rfc, child sections
>>      may have numbered="false".
> 
> Limiting this to top-level sections was very intentional; the reasons
> given above are IMHO not sufficient at all for this change.
> 
> Heather, by any means, please undo this change for now.
> 
> 

I don’t think having numbered child sections in an otherwise unnumbered section (especially if they are inheriting a phantom number from the unnumbered section” is a good idea at all. Do you have better language that I can use to state that is prohibited? 

-Heather

>