Re: [xml2rfc-dev] RFC 7991 issue #21: Schema Issue, RFC 7991, In Section 2.5.5, "name" Attribute

[Henrik Levkowetz <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jim,

On 2018-10-03 05:02, Jim Schaad wrote:
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: xml2rfc-dev <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Henrik
>> Levkowetz
>> Sent: Monday, October 1, 2018 4:28 AM
>> To: XML Developer List <[e-mail]>
>> Subject: [xml2rfc-dev] RFC 7991 issue #21: Schema Issue, RFC 7991, In Section
>> 2.5.5, "name" Attribute
>> 
>> This captures an issue noted during implementation, also described in
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-levkowetz-xml2rfc-v3-implementation#section-
>> 3.1.1
>> 
>> Specification: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7991#section-2.5.5
>> 
>> ---
>> 
>>       "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 have no problems with keeping this as "name" rather than "file".
> There is not a great deal of difference to me.
> 
> I am worried about the rendering of the "name" parameter if present.
> Is this going to be conditional on the presence of the <CODE BEGINS>
> rendering or is it done regardless.

The next release will render <CODE BEGINS> file "Appendix.3.2.cddl" only
if a new attribute "markers" is set to "true", which is my proposed
resolution for the question of whether to render code markers or not.

> I would like to be able to
> associate file names that are not rendered to the public as I
> generally chose those names that make sense if you read them. Such as
> "Appendix.3.2.cddl"

Will the above resolution work for you, then, or do we need separate
"name" and "file" attributes, or do we need 2 separate attributes to
control rendering of code markers vs rendering of file name?


Best regards,

	Henrik