Re: [xml2rfc-dev] RFC 7991 issue #21: Schema Issue, RFC 7991, In Section 2.5.5, "name" Attribute

[Jim Schaad <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henrik Levkowetz <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 3, 2018 2:57 AM
> To: Jim Schaad <[e-mail]>; 'XML Developer List' <xml2rfc-
> [e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [xml2rfc-dev] RFC 7991 issue #21: Schema Issue, RFC 7991, In
> Section 2.5.5, "name" Attribute
> 
> Hi Jim,
> 
> On 2018-10-03 05:02, Jim Schaad wrote:
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: xml2rfc-dev <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Henrik
> >> Levkowetz
> >> Sent: Monday, October 1, 2018 4:28 AM
> >> To: XML Developer List <[e-mail]>
> >> Subject: [xml2rfc-dev] RFC 7991 issue #21: Schema Issue, RFC 7991, In
> >> Section 2.5.5, "name" Attribute
> >>
> >> This captures an issue noted during implementation, also described in
> >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-levkowetz-xml2rfc-v3-implementation
> >> #section-
> >> 3.1.1
> >>
> >> Specification: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7991#section-2.5.5
> >>
> >> ---
> >>
> >>       "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 have no problems with keeping this as "name" rather than "file".
> > There is not a great deal of difference to me.
> >
> > I am worried about the rendering of the "name" parameter if present.
> > Is this going to be conditional on the presence of the <CODE BEGINS>
> > rendering or is it done regardless.
> 
> The next release will render <CODE BEGINS> file "Appendix.3.2.cddl" only if a
> new attribute "markers" is set to "true", which is my proposed resolution for
> the question of whether to render code markers or not.
> 
> > I would like to be able to
> > associate file names that are not rendered to the public as I
> > generally chose those names that make sense if you read them. Such as
> > "Appendix.3.2.cddl"
> 
> Will the above resolution work for you, then, or do we need separate "name"
> and "file" attributes, or do we need 2 separate attributes to control rendering
> of code markers vs rendering of file name?

That resolution works for me.   There might be some source code people who might be surprised but I don't know how big of a problem that would be. 

Jim

> 
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> 	Henrik