[xml2rfc] Re: Announcing 1.33pre3

[mrose at dbc.mtview.ca.us (Marshall Rose)]

> That DTD says its date is 2005-10-25 like the DTD I already
> had, and the only change is s/"info"/#IMPLIED/ for the
> category.  Is that really the 1.33pre3 experimental DTD ?

here's the file. we'll make sure the right one is on the servers.

/mtr
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: rfc2629.dtd
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 8685 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://drakken.dbc.mtview.ca.us/pipermail/xml2rfc/attachments/20070401/e54b1083/rfc2629.obj
>From tony at att.com  Sun Apr  1 21:47:38 2007
From: tony at att.com (Tony Hansen)
Date: Sun Apr  1 17:47:24 2007
Subject: [xml2rfc] minor nitlet I'd like flagged
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
	<[e-mail]>
	<[e-mail]>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> Just want to check on this, since it seems that different people have
>> different usage models.  I tend to name things with short names that
>> have no relationship to the output file, e.g.,
>> draft-fenner-iana-exp-2780 was created by iana-experimental.xml .  Are
>> you proposing that with this usage model, the warning should always
>> trigger?
> 
> I personally use the full filename, but that is just my finicky
> personality coming out ;-). I think that using a short form is
> quite reasonable. But maybe, iff the name starts with draft- you can
> process the version number?

+1

>>> PS. I use the online xml2rfc submission form.
>>
>> This is actually a sticky wicket: the online converter can return
>> status or the converted file, but not both, so it chooses to ignore
>> warnings in favor of supplying the converted file.
>>
>> Certainly it'd be possible to return an HTML status page that uses an
>> http refresh header to download the converted document, but I'm not
>> sure making that change would make us many friends (especially since
>> right now you can easily script the online conversion).
> 
> Maybe add a 3rd "show warnings" alternative to the "output result" options?

I'd certainly like the option of seeing the warnings. I also could see
an option that caused the warnings to be shown, along with a link that
you could click on to go directly to the output if you chose to.

First form:

	Input file     ________________
	Output mode    * Text o HTML o nroff o unpaginated XML
 	Output result  * Window o File
	Show warnings: * no o yes

If you chose to show warnings, you'd see something like this:

	The following warnings were found ....

	__LINK__ Generate file, ignoring warnings

If not on the default form, perhaps the "show warnings" could be on the
Advanced form that I brought up in another thread?

	Tony Hansen
	[e-mail]
>From nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de  Mon Apr  2 03:46:47 2007
From: nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de (Frank Ellermann)
Date: Sun Apr  1 17:48:10 2007
Subject: [xml2rfc] Re: Announcing 1.33pre3
References: <[e-mail]>
	<[e-mail]>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

Marshall Rose wrote:

> here's the file

Thanks, now it's 5 (or 4) changes, 2007 timestamp, no
default category, section nesting, ditto appendix, and
irefs at the begin of a figure.

Frank