[xml2rfc] References feature

dave at cridland.net (Dave Cridland) Fri, 30 June 2006 15:17 UTC

From: dave at cridland.net (Dave Cridland)
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 15:17:12 +0000
Subject: [xml2rfc] References feature
In-Reply-To: <01M48NPH8U2I0008CX@mauve.mrochek.com>
References: <01M48MPYZAVW0008CX@mauve.mrochek.com> <Pine.LNX.4.10.10606301443160.6820-100000@shell4.bayarea.net> <01M48NPH8U2I0008CX@mauve.mrochek.com>
Message-ID: <8537.1151705802.245982@peirce.dave.cridland.net>
X-Date: Fri Jun 30 15:17:12 2006

On Fri Jun 30 22:59:59 2006, Ned Freed wrote:
> > It seems like if I make a bunch of citations, and mark each
> > with "it's 'normative' or 'informative'" that it would be
> > easy to put the reference in the 'normative' section if
> > any citation was normative. Later on, if the 'normative'
> > citation was removed (or perhaps changed to 'informative')
> > then the reference would auto-magically move to the
> > proper section.
> 
> Only if you find all the places and change them. Why would I want
> to wade through the entire document doing that?

No, you don't have to - the idea would be that if you removed the 
only normative xref (ie, <xref ... thing='normative'/>) leaving only 
informative ones (ie, <xref ... thing='informative'/>) then it'd 
automagically happen. No wading required - I'm sure an amusing 
reference to Dallas can be made here.

The actual reference elements would be thrown in a single container, 
and not marked normative or informative, xml2rfc figures out the 
normativeness of them by the presence of a normative xref. Any others 
get turned into informative references.

Whether or not this is worth doing (or, just as important, worth 
changing xml2rfc etc for) is a different matter, and personally I'm 
undecided, but I'd like to be sure that you're against it for the 
right reasons. :-)

Dave.
-- 
Dave Cridland - mailto:dave@cridland.net - xmpp:dwd@jabber.org
  - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
  - http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
>From dave at cridland.net  Sat Jul  1 02:10:20 2006
From: dave at cridland.net (Dave Cridland)
Date: Fri Jun 30 17:10:36 2006
Subject: [xml2rfc] References feature
In-Reply-To: <01M48Q3ZG7N60008CX@mauve.mrochek.com>
References: <01M48MPYZAVW0008CX@mauve.mrochek.com>
 <Pine.LNX.4.10.10606301443160.6820-100000@shell4.bayarea.net>
 <01M48NPH8U2I0008CX@mauve.mrochek.com>
 <8537.1151705802.245982@peirce.dave.cridland.net>
 <01M48Q3ZG7N60008CX@mauve.mrochek.com>
Message-ID: <8537.1151712620.883534@peirce.dave.cridland.net>

On Sat Jul  1 00:05:25 2006, Ned Freed wrote:
> Your model for working with documents is completely different from 
> mine then
> (and having watched the process with lots of other people doing the 
> editing, I
> don't think your approach is the common one).

Well, my approach is the same as yours right now. I don't know 
whether I'd change it - I suspect it'd vary according the the 
document.

> The specific places where references occur are somewhere between
> totally irrelevant and actively misleading.
> 
> 
Well, that's an entirely different matter - it might be interesting 
if XML2RFC warned that a normative reference was only referenced 
within an informative appendix, say. But that again requires 
additional markup, and doesn't work the other way around.

But it's *how* it's referenced, not where.


> If I had to mark all the references as to whether they were 
> normative or
> informative I would inevitably end up with a mish-mash in these 
> corner cases.

I'm with you up to here.


> THen when I decide to switch to informative, I have to wade through 
> and find
> they all. Not hard, but annoying, because the tendency will be to 
> stop at the
> first one.
> 
> 
Okay, here I get lost. Why would you want to change a reference from 
being normative to informative? The only case I can see for this is 
it you're changing the specification such that all the xrefs become 
informative. I suppose you might want to force this case for 
procedural reasons, but that's a reason to change the specification, 
not to simply downgrade the reference. Or am I being purist here?


>> The actual reference elements would be thrown in a single 
>> container,
>> and not marked normative or informative, xml2rfc figures out the
>> normativeness of them by the presence of a normative xref. Any 
>> others
>> get turned into informative references.
> 
> I understand the model you're proposing quite well. I just don't 
> think it's an
> improvement.

First off, it's not my proposal. I just thought that neither you nor 
Marshall seemed to grasp it, and any idea should only ever get shot 
down for the right reasons. It turns out I simply misunderstood your 
objection.

Now, personally, I think there would be cases where the reference 
would be normative even though no xrefs were normative. I also 
suspect that even if you covered this, you'd end up with significant 
extra markup (for authors) and code (for implementors), and I'm not 
sure there's sufficient benefit to pay for this effort.

Dave.
-- 
Dave Cridland - mailto:dave@cridland.net - xmpp:dwd@jabber.org
  - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
  - http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
>From julian at mehnle.net  Sat Jul  1 02:45:20 2006
From: julian at mehnle.net (Julian Mehnle)
Date: Fri Jun 30 18:45:33 2006
Subject: [xml2rfc] Re: References feature
In-Reply-To: <01M48Q3ZG7N60008CX@mauve.mrochek.com>
References: <01M48MPYZAVW0008CX@mauve.mrochek.com>
	<8537.1151705802.245982@peirce.dave.cridland.net>
	<01M48Q3ZG7N60008CX@mauve.mrochek.com>
Message-ID: <200607010145.20642.julian@mehnle.net>

Ned Freed wrote:
> If I had to mark all the references as to whether they were normative or
> informative [...]

As far as I can see, no one proposed making explicitly marking references 
mandatory, just that those who wanted to could do it and that xml2rfc 
would then make use of it to automate reference categorizarion.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://drakken.dbc.mtview.ca.us/pipermail/xml2rfc/attachments/20060701/2751bcf0/attachment-0001.bin
>From mrose at dbc.mtview.ca.us  Sat Jul  1 12:02:28 2006
From: mrose at dbc.mtview.ca.us (Marshall Rose)
Date: Fri Jun 30 22:32:41 2006
Subject: [xml2rfc] Problem with <texttable>
In-Reply-To: <200606301755.k5UHtcGj003755@dragon.ariadne.com>
References: <1150737975.13332.38.camel@niagra.pingtel.com>
	<3221F294-1766-4874-A256-6762E4BDACEA@dbc.mtview.ca.us>
	<200606211244.k5LCiOoZ025454@dragon.ariadne.com>
	<3AA6CFC3-F825-4F14-B230-AACF44310794@dbc.mtview.ca.us>
	<200606301755.k5UHtcGj003755@dragon.ariadne.com>
Message-ID: <96B91789-6DF7-4DD4-975B-CF9B10C235BB@dbc.mtview.ca.us>

>    for the third column add this
>
> 	   width='30em'
>
>    that should let you proceed. i'm still looking at the bug.
>
> Curious.  It does work for me.

i'm not sure i follow.

you sent a file that showed that xml2rfc had a bug.

i suggested you add the width attribute above as a temporary hack to  
get around the bug.

did the fix work for you?

/mtr