Re: [xml2rfc-dev] RFC 7991 issue #36: Schema Issue, RFC 7991, In Section 2.5.5, "name" Attribute

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

On 10/1/2018 2:45 PM, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
> Hi Julian,
> 
> On 2018-10-01 14:10, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> On 10/1/2018 1:36 PM, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
>>> ...
>>>
>>>         "A filename suitable for the contents (such as for extraction to a
>>>         local file)."
>>>
>>>      Given the existing use of "name" on <seriesInfo>, this attribute name
>>>      has a semantic dissonance.
>>>
>>>      Recommendation:  Deprecate "name" for use on <artwork> and <sourcecode>,
>>>                       and instead use "file", which for <sourcecode> will be
>>>                       explicitly rendered, as established as best current
>>>                       practice for YANG modules (see for instance RFC 6087
>>>                       [RFC6087])
>>>
>>>      Implementation:  The current version of xml2rfc uses "name".
>>> ---
>>> ...
>>
>> I would avoid making changes that aren't strictly necessary, thus keep
>> the name as-is.
> 
> I think now, before actual use of v3 starts in earnest is the only chance
> we have to make changes like this.  So if the change makes sense, let's
> do it, rather than live forever with something which is (even if only
> slightly) less appropriate.

Well, @name has been around for over a decade, it's not a V3 thing. If 
this was new, I'd be more likely to agree.

>> I also disagree with coupling the sourcecode tagging to the presence of
>> a (file)name. This violates the principle of least surprise. There are
>> good reasons for providing names, such as for automatic extraction
>> during build time (for instance for running check scripts), which have
>> absolutely nothing to do with the presentation in text or other formats.
> 
> On the coupling with sourcecode tagging, it was not my intention here
> to argue for that.  FWIW, in the next release of xml2rfc the insertion
> of <CODE BEGINS> will be controlled by an attribute "markers", with the
> default being "false".  Expansion of "file" or "name" would occur only
> for markers="true".
> 
> The "markers" attribute is of course also something we'll have to decide
> on, quite apart from this issue's proposed change of "name" to "file".

Ok, then I misread that point.

Best regards, Julian