[xml2rfc] "error: with content model", or how to insert a <note> before the <abstract>?

[julian at mehnle.net (Julian Mehnle)]

Hi.

I'm trying to update the XML source of the recently released SPF RFC (RFC 
4408) with the RFC Ed's and the AUTH48 changes.  The IESG had an "IESG 
Note" inserted in the RFC, however it was inserted _before_ the abstract.  
Using xml2rfc 1.31pre5 I thus get the following error:

| xml2rfc: error: with content model {title {} author + date {} area *
| workgroup * keyword * abstract ? note *} for <front>, seen {title author
| author date workgroup note} so far, now expecting <note> or </front>, but
| not <abstract> around input line 133 in "internally-preprocessed XML"   

How do I get the <note> element in front of the <abstract> element?  I 
think xml2rfc's content model will have to be adjusted to allow for what 
the IESG and the RFC Editor have done with RFC 4408.

Julian.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://drakken.dbc.mtview.ca.us/pipermail/xml2rfc/attachments/20060501/3ff62746/attachment.bin
>From julian at mehnle.net  Wed May  3 00:49:44 2006
From: julian at mehnle.net (Julian Mehnle)
Date: Tue May  2 16:50:04 2006
Subject: [xml2rfc] Some additional comments on xml2rfc features
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

During my browsing the list archives for some answers, I found some 
additional things I'd like to comment on.  I hope nobody minds me bringing 
them up again now.

Charles Levert wrote on 2005-04-09:
> This sample ToC also has "....." instead of ". . .".
> What about that?
> (The TeXbook itself alternates between ". . . "
>                                    and " . . ."!!)

Charles Levert wrote on 2005-04-21:
> Changes in 1.30pre1 (from 1.29):
>   [...]
>   -- The ToC leader remains ". . . . .",
>                         not ".........".
>      This is not configurable.

It seems the RFC Editor's official ToC leader style changed from ". . . . "
to "........" around RFC 4035..4038 last year.  Wouldn't it be a good idea
to at least make this configurable, if not to change it to "........" 
permanently, too?

Charles Levert wrote on 2005-10-16:
> [Discussion about <dfn>, <cite> & co.]
> E.g., I would like to provide authors with a way to explicitly mark up
> RFC-2119 keywords, and encourage them to use it.  It could do something
> simple at first (e.g., small-caps font) but could later be improved to
> show a pop-up with the exact definition of the term. 

Why not provide predefined &MUST; etc. entities for brevity?  Having to 
type <cite ...>MUST</cite> every time one wants to use RFC 2119 keywords 
would be too tiresome, I guess.

Julian M.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://drakken.dbc.mtview.ca.us/pipermail/xml2rfc/attachments/20060502/c75083ac/attachment.bin
>From julian.reschke at gmx.de  Thu May  4 19:01:27 2006
From: julian.reschke at gmx.de (Julian Reschke)
Date: Thu May  4 09:03:45 2006
Subject: [xml2rfc] Some additional comments on xml2rfc features
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Julian Mehnle wrote:
> During my browsing the list archives for some answers, I found some 
> additional things I'd like to comment on.  I hope nobody minds me bringing 
> them up again now.
> 
> Charles Levert wrote on 2005-04-09:
>> This sample ToC also has "....." instead of ". . .".
>> What about that?
>> (The TeXbook itself alternates between ". . . "
>>                                    and " . . ."!!)
> 
> Charles Levert wrote on 2005-04-21:
>> Changes in 1.30pre1 (from 1.29):
>>   [...]
>>   -- The ToC leader remains ". . . . .",
>>                         not ".........".
>>      This is not configurable.
> 
> It seems the RFC Editor's official ToC leader style changed from ". . . . "
> to "........" around RFC 4035..4038 last year.  Wouldn't it be a good idea
> to at least make this configurable, if not to change it to "........" 
> permanently, too?

I think the RFC Editor's statement is that they'll either choose one 
format and then tell us, or alternatively they don't care and once they 
use xml2rfc they'll just publish what it happens to create.

No reason for changes right now.

> ...

Best regards, Julian (R.)