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

[Henrik Levkowetz <[e-mail]>]

On 2019-10-29 19:30, Heather Flanagan wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Oct 29, 2019, at 11:21 AM, Julian Reschke <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> On 29.10.2019 19:13, Heather Flanagan wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 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?
>> 
>> Just say that descendant sections of unnumbered sections are unnumbered
>> by definition (and that it would be an error to set numbered back to true).
> 
> Great, that gets to what I want.

Say you have two sibling sections with numbered="false".  If you decide
you want to rearrange these, so you move one of them into the other, then
suddenly if having numbered="false" in a child section is prohibited, your
XML becomes invalid.

I think that's unfriendly and completely unnecessary.

Regards,

	Henrik

>> 
>> Asking authors to repeat themselves when the intent is totally clear
>> just doesn't make any sense.
> 
> Which wasn’t my intent, but I can see how you got there.
> 
>> 
>> FWIW, I'm also opposed to expanding control to subsections for now (and
>> I see that you didn't adopt that part of the proposal yet). Before we do
>> that, we should have a clear use case.
> 
> Right now, I’m in the middle of trying to figure out how to capture the reality of <seriesInfo> and make appropriate changes. After that, it will be <sourcecode> and then (if my brain hasn’t melted) “keepWithNext”.
> 
> -Heather
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> xml2rfc-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xml2rfc-dev
>