Re: [xml2rfc-dev] xml2rfc: use of <boilerplate> in preptool step

[Henrik Levkowetz <[e-mail]>]

Martin:

On 2019-10-11 08:37, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019, at 03:44, Heather Flanagan wrote:
>> I feel fairly strongly that the final XML must be self-contained. While 
>> someone can derive the TOC based in section headers, deriving details 
>> is not as good as just have the thing available in one place. 
> 
> I'm struggling to understand this argument.  In what way does having
> a TOC in the XML make the document more self-contained?  It only
> seems to add redundancy, which only invites contradiction as far as I
> can see.  In my view, informed by long experience with DRY
> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_repeat_yourself), derivations
> are always far more robust.
> 
> Removing the redundancy, all you have is a signal about the desired
> *location* of the TOC, but I don't see any value in encoding that
> information.
> 
>> You don’t agree. I get that. But I am insisting on this one.
> 
> I get the appeal to authority bit (or assertion thereof really), but
> I don't think we should operate that way, and I hope that you don't
> expect us to accede to that either.

After a discussion about including the generated Table of Contents and
Index in the prepped XML output file last year, it was decided to keep
the ToC, but not include the Index.  Now Julian opposed having the ToC
as part of the <boilerplate> element, so it was moved to <toc> (which I
think is a good move).

Are you against moving the ToC to a separate element within <front>,
instead of making it a <section> within <boilerplate>, or are you aiming
to undo the decision from last year about including the ToC?


	Henrik