Re: [xml2rfc-dev] <artset> feedback

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

On 11.05.2019 14:40, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
> ...
>> So the HTTP specification is a description, not a specification?
>
> Could you be slightly more specific?  Which document are you talking
> about?

RFC 2616, for instance.

> ...
>> As far as I recall, quote-title was introduced while 7749 was in the
>> works, and we consciously limited it to what was implemented when the
>> work started.
>
> So it's a description of the status quo at a particular point in time?

Yes. But just because something describes doesn't mean it's not a
specification (in case that's your point).

>> We did indeed look at quote-title, found that the name was inconsistent
>> with the remainder of the vocabulary, and picked quoteTitle instead (in
>> 7791).
>>
>> I still don't understand why you just don't fix it in your
>> implementation according to the spec.
>
> You're asking for something that would break existing xml?

a) I did research and found just a few XML files (in AUTH48 history)
that used it.

b) Feel free to accept the other form as well (and maybe emit a
warning). Then there'll be no breakage.

> The current xml2rfc understands both, and the v2v3 converter converts
> quote-title to quoteTitle; if you're asking for more, you're asking for
 > ...

That's fine.

>>> ...
>> Good catch. So the TCL code did something weird here (also not what it
>> said it does in
>> <http://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/tools/xml2rfc/archive/README.html#anchor10>)
>>
>>> I'll adjust the v2v3 converter to produce <artset> in the v3 output when it
>>> comes across both "src" content and inline content in the v2 input.
>>
>> That's nice but I don't think it's sufficient.
>
> Ahh, but I think it is.  Difference of opinion, here.
>
>> This simply is and had been valid input, and there is no reason not to
>> support it in v3. Well, except to justify the introduction of <artset> :-)
>
> So there's a lot of the vocabulary that is marked deprecated.  I'll just
> permit all of that in pure v3 too, then?

<https://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc7991.html#rfc.section.1.3.3> says:

"Deprecated elements and attributes are legacy vocabulary from v2 that
are supported for input to v3 tools. They are likely to be removed from
those tools in the future."

So I'd say yes, they should be accepted.

> I understand that you don't like <artset>.  You've said so repeatedly, and
> it looks as if you can't let it go.  I'm fine with you having that opinion.
 > ...

Well, if you don't want to back it out, at least take my implementation
feedback seriously.

Best regards, Julian