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

[Henrik Levkowetz <[e-mail]>]

>> 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.

I believe this is a quite sufficient reason not to enforce a prohibition
against setting numbered="false" for sections that are children of a
section with numbered="false.  

>> 
> 
> 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.

I fully agree.


Best regards,

	Henrik

> Do you
> have better language that I can use to state that is prohibited?> 
> -Heather
> 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> xml2rfc-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xml2rfc-dev
>