Re: [xml2rfc-dev] progressing RFC 7991 (and friends)

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

On 05.06.2020 15:23, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>  ...
> Will try to.
>
> Just as a random data point, my biggest problem with V3 at the moment is that I only can use a subset of human names in acknowledgements or other running text (I want to use Vigenère ciphers! :-); doing some more work here would be appreciated.
> ...

I agree that xml2rfc's approach to disallow non-ASCII except in very
limited cases is problematic.

It would be good open a ticket about that, even if the actual change in
xml2rfc causing this (the introduction of <u>) is still not part of RFC
7991, and thus (pedantically speaking) not really an issue in rfc7991bis.

> (The other work that is sorely needed is embracing standard typography for English; I’m not holding my breath here.)

Hyphens and quotes?

RFC 7991 really is agnostic about that; this would be input for the
revision of the style guide (which needs to happen as well, and in
coordination with 7991bis).

> ...
>> Right now, we have
>> <https://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-iab-rfc7991bis-latest.html#rfc.section.E>,
>> and you can also check previous changes in:
>>
>> https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-iab-rfc7991bis-00.txt
>> https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-iab-rfc7991bis-01.txt
>> https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-iab-rfc7991bis-02.txt
>> https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-iab-rfc7991bis-03.txt
>>
>> That said, if you want a diff between "latest" and 7991, I can generate
>> that as well.
>
> Actually, what I’d *really* want is that, with the section numbering noise removed.
> (I just looked at the diff you linked, and it is drowned in that kind o fnoise.)
> [I said *what* I want, not that I have any idea how to get it.]
> ...

In that case, looking at the Changes section might give you a
easier-to-process summary.

Best regards, Julian