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

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

On 29.10.2019 21:59, Henrik Levkowetz 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.
>
> Prohibiting numbered="false" in a child of a section with numbering="false"
> does not provide any feature or any gain, but will make life harder on
> authors.

Nobody proposed that. You might be misreading what I said. When I said
"limiting this" I was referring to the feature of having control only
over top-level section numbering. That doesn't mean you couldn't set
numbered="false" on a child section of an unnumbered section; it just
would not be needed.

>  ...

Best regards, Julian