[xml2rfc] rfc/seriesInfo extension/clarifications

julian.reschke at gmx.de (Julian Reschke) Sun, 06 August 2006 04:16 UTC

From: julian.reschke at gmx.de (Julian Reschke)
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2006 04:16:24 +0000
Subject: [xml2rfc] rfc/seriesInfo extension/clarifications
Message-ID: <44D5CF81.2050201@gmx.de>
X-Date: Sun Aug 6 04:16:24 2006

Hi,

I'd like to see some minor changes to the element, and its documentation.

1) It would be nice if the documentation would give some guidance on how 
to use it with Internet Drafts. What's the recommended name 
(lower/upper/mixed?), and what's the correct format for the value (is 
the draft number required?).

2) Related to this, should the docname attribute on <rfc> contain the 
suffix ".txt"? I see some authors doing this, but I think it's 
incorrect. Maybe there should be a warning attached to this.

3) Sometimes I want to cite an Internet Draft, and I'm fully aware that 
it's *not* work-in-progress (because it has been abandoned). I do like 
the processor adding the "work in progress" in general, but maybe we 
could add a mechanism to suppress that? Either by a new attribute on 
seriesInfo, or maybe triggered by the presence of an annotation element?

Best regards, Julian
>From mrose at dbc.mtview.ca.us  Tue Aug  8 17:49:24 2006
From: mrose at dbc.mtview.ca.us (Marshall Rose)
Date: Tue Aug  8 16:49:30 2006
Subject: [xml2rfc] rfc/seriesInfo extension/clarifications
In-Reply-To: <44D5CF81.2050201@gmx.de>
References: <44D5CF81.2050201@gmx.de>
Message-ID: <98F1C2C8-34B9-4277-A941-9E5D34585992@dbc.mtview.ca.us>

> I'd like to see some minor changes to the element, and its  
> documentation.
>
> 1) It would be nice if the documentation would give some guidance  
> on how to use it with Internet Drafts. What's the recommended name  
> (lower/upper/mixed?), and what's the correct format for the value  
> (is the draft number required?).

just so i'm clear, you're talking about the name='...' attribute of  
the <seriesInfo/> element, right?

what do people use now? i always used "Internet-Draft".


> 2) Related to this, should the docname attribute on <rfc> contain  
> the suffix ".txt"? I see some authors doing this, but I think it's  
> incorrect. Maybe there should be a warning attached to this.

i think it is a mistake to include a suffix. although, i can see  
arguments to the contrary.


> 3) Sometimes I want to cite an Internet Draft, and I'm fully aware  
> that it's *not* work-in-progress (because it has been abandoned). I  
> do like the processor adding the "work in progress" in general, but  
> maybe we could add a mechanism to suppress that? Either by a new  
> attribute on seriesInfo, or maybe triggered by the presence of an  
> annotation element?

since the "work in progress" thing is a "courtesy detail" added by  
the processor, i'd prefer to add an optional attribute indicating  
whether the embellishment should be present.

/mtr