[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"
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
- [xml2rfc] rfc/seriesInfo extension/clarifications Julian Reschke
- [xml2rfc] rfc/seriesInfo extension/clarifications Julian Reschke