[xml2rfc] Problem with <texttable>

[Dale.Worley at comcast.net ([e-mail])]

   From: Marshall Rose <[e-mail]>

   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.

Dale
>From dave at cridland.net  Fri Jun 30 20:58:10 2006
From: dave at cridland.net (Dave Cridland)
Date: Fri Jun 30 11:58:25 2006
Subject: [xml2rfc] References feature
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
References: <0aac01c69ba4$98b81320$[e-mail]>
 <[e-mail]>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

On Fri Jun 30 19:33:27 2006, Marshall Rose wrote:
> in other words, my belief (which may be mistaken) is that the 
> statement
> 
> 	Z is normative
> 
> has meaning only in the context of the referring document.

And David is saying that you're incorrect, because the statement "Z 
is normative" has meaning only in the context of the xref. By 
collecting references into Normative and Informative piles, we force 
the scope into being document wide, but this can be done quite easily 
- if there are any normative xref to Z in the document, then the 
reference itself is normative.

In other words, xml2rfc (or whatever) could handle the division for 
us, given more metadata at the xref itself.

Dave.
-- 
Dave Cridland - mailto:[e-mail] - xmpp:[e-mail]
  - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
  - http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
>From ned.freed at mrochek.com  Fri Jun 30 15:27:54 2006
From: ned.freed at mrochek.com (Ned Freed)
Date: Fri Jun 30 14:35:55 2006
Subject: [xml2rfc] References feature
In-Reply-To: "Your message dated Fri, 30 Jun 2006 19:58:10 +0100"
 <[e-mail]>
References: <0aac01c69ba4$98b81320$[e-mail]>
 <[e-mail]>
 <[e-mail]>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

> On Fri Jun 30 19:33:27 2006, Marshall Rose wrote:
> > in other words, my belief (which may be mistaken) is that the
> > statement
> >
> > 	Z is normative
> >
> > has meaning only in the context of the referring document.

> And David is saying that you're incorrect, because the statement "Z
> is normative" has meaning only in the context of the xref.

I have to say I agree with Marshall and disagree with this assertion.
I think the normative or informative nature of a referece is a cumulative
thing, not necessarily associated with any specific xref.

> By
> collecting references into Normative and Informative piles, we force
> the scope into being document wide, but this can be done quite easily
> - if there are any normative xref to Z in the document, then the
> reference itself is normative.

But as a practical matter, the scope _is_ document-wide. We can't adcance part
of a specification because the references to some other document at lower grade
are only informative in that part.

Let's please not forget that the main purpose of the normative/informative
split is in handling document advancement. I can safely say that I've spent
essentially no time worrying about the type of reference for other purposes.

> In other words, xml2rfc (or whatever) could handle the division for
> us, given more metadata at the xref itself.

Yes, and make it harder to shift a reference from normative to informative in
the process. Silly states should be avoided when possible.

				Ned
>From dperkins at dsperkins.com  Fri Jun 30 15:48:09 2006
From: dperkins at dsperkins.com (David T. Perkins)
Date: Fri Jun 30 14:48:19 2006
Subject: [xml2rfc] References feature
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

HI,

I'm not sure I follow the logic.

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. 

I don't see a problem with that? Did I get the logic backwards?

On Fri, 30 Jun 2006, Ned Freed wrote:
> > On Fri Jun 30 19:33:27 2006, Marshall Rose wrote:
> > > in other words, my belief (which may be mistaken) is that the
> > > statement
> > >
> > > 	Z is normative
> > >
> > > has meaning only in the context of the referring document.
> 
> > And David is saying that you're incorrect, because the statement "Z
> > is normative" has meaning only in the context of the xref.
> 
> I have to say I agree with Marshall and disagree with this assertion.
> I think the normative or informative nature of a referece is a cumulative
> thing, not necessarily associated with any specific xref.
> 
> > By
> > collecting references into Normative and Informative piles, we force
> > the scope into being document wide, but this can be done quite easily
> > - if there are any normative xref to Z in the document, then the
> > reference itself is normative.
> 
> But as a practical matter, the scope _is_ document-wide. We can't adcance part
> of a specification because the references to some other document at lower grade
> are only informative in that part.
> 
> Let's please not forget that the main purpose of the normative/informative
> split is in handling document advancement. I can safely say that I've spent
> essentially no time worrying about the type of reference for other purposes.
> 
> > In other words, xml2rfc (or whatever) could handle the division for
> > us, given more metadata at the xref itself.
> 
> Yes, and make it harder to shift a reference from normative to informative in
> the process. Silly states should be avoided when possible.
> 
> 				Ned
Regards,
/david t. perkins