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

[Jim Schaad <[e-mail]>]

> -----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.  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"

Jim

> ---
> 
> Regards,
> 	Henrik
> 
> --
> This issue is tracked at:
>    https://github.com/rfc-format/draft-iab-xml2rfc-v3-bis/issues/36
> 
> Discussion should take place on this list.