[xml2rfc] rfc/seriesInfo extension/clarifications

julian.reschke at gmx.de (Julian Reschke) Tue, 08 August 2006 23:34 UTC

From: julian.reschke at gmx.de (Julian Reschke)
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 23:34:05 +0000
Subject: [xml2rfc] rfc/seriesInfo extension/clarifications
In-Reply-To: <98F1C2C8-34B9-4277-A941-9E5D34585992@dbc.mtview.ca.us>
References: <44D5CF81.2050201@gmx.de> <98F1C2C8-34B9-4277-A941-9E5D34585992@dbc.mtview.ca.us>
Message-ID: <44D981D0.20400@gmx.de>
X-Date: Tue Aug 8 23:34:05 2006

Marshall Rose schrieb:
>> 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".

So do I. Would it make sense to document that somewhere?

>> 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.

Hm. That makes me curious. What are these arguments?

>> 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.

Fine with me as well (but would mean that existing documents may display 
differently...). Such as

	status    (workInProgress)	#IMPLIED

? Speaking of which, does it really belong on seriesInfo, or should it 
be on the reference itself?

Best regards, Julian