Re: [xml2rfc-dev] RFC 7991 issue #36: Schema Issue, RFC 7991, In Section 2.5.5, "name" Attribute

[Henrik Levkowetz <[e-mail]>]

Hi Julian,

On 2018-10-01 15:07, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 10/1/2018 2:45 PM, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
>> Hi Julian,
>> 
>> On 2018-10-01 14:10, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>> On 10/1/2018 1:36 PM, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>         "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 would avoid making changes that aren't strictly necessary, thus keep
>>> the name as-is.
>> 
>> I think now, before actual use of v3 starts in earnest is the only chance
>> we have to make changes like this.  So if the change makes sense, let's
>> do it, rather than live forever with something which is (even if only
>> slightly) less appropriate.
> 
> Well, @name has been around for over a decade, it's not a V3 thing. If 
> this was new, I'd be more likely to agree.

Umm?  For the specific purpose of specifying the name of a file for
extraction of artwork or sourcecode?  This is the specific case I'm
thinking of here.


Best,

	Henrik