element and >> another one added as part of the boilerplate about RFC >> Editor function funding (which should not be, IMO, included in >> I-Ds at all, much less generated automatically). >> >> It is not clear to me that these are problems with xml2rfc or >> the DTD as much as they are difficulties created by confusion >> about IESG or Secretariat (or other boilerplate source) norms, >> and I would hope that those bodies would get their confusion >> cleared up. Thanks John, Dave From: john+xml@jck.com (John C Klensin) Date: Sat, 03 Jul 2004 05:14:05 -0400 Subject: [xml2rfc] Re: getting xml2rfc to output the category In-Reply-To: <20040702190003.15559.14591.Mailman@qawoor.dbc.mtview.ca.us> References: <20040702190003.15559.14591.Mailman@qawoor.dbc.mtview .ca.us> Message-ID: --On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 11:01:30 -0700, David Meyer , wrote... > I have specificed the my category in the rfc element, but > it's not (apparently) output anywhere. The reason I ask > is because I like to put a category header on my drafts > so people can see what I intend (I like to have it WG > chair as well). > > Anyway to do this? Dave, without answering your question, I note that, historically, Internet Drafts have been _prohibited_ from containing that information, or "obsoletes or "updates" statements, anywhere in the headers. This has been out of concern for confusion with RFCs and because it implies a claim that isn't yet valid/approved. As with many other things related to I-Ds, Secretariat enforcement of that requirement has been sporadic at best and, I believe, on the decline in the last few years. And I note that 1id-guidelines.txt was changed in the latest version to now prohibit this terminology only in the title, which is, IMO, a useless restriction that does not reflect the original intent. And 1id-guidelines.txt no longer mentions Obsoletes/Updates which, I am fairly sure, were explicitly prohibited historically. However, if one wants to follow those historical rules, it identifies an issue with xml2rfc and with the current state of documents and boilerplate generally. For the specific case you are concerned about, the historical solution has been to add some sentences to the "Status of this Memo" section that says, e.g., "If a successor to this document is ultimately approved, it is expected to be a and to obsolete ." But, since "Status of this Memo" is, using xml2rfc, entirely automagically-generated boilerplate, there is no way to add that sentence or associated explanatory material (such as the location of mailing lists for discussion) to that section. I note in passing that we are now committing the stylistic obscenity of having two Acknowledgement sections in many documents -- one supplied by authors in a

element and another one added as part of the boilerplate about RFC Editor function funding (which should not be, IMO, included in I-Ds at all, much less generated automatically). It is not clear to me that these are problems with xml2rfc or the DTD as much as they are difficulties created by confusion about IESG or Secretariat (or other boilerplate source) norms, and I would hope that those bodies would get their confusion cleared up. best, john From: dmm@1-4-5.net (David Meyer) Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 13:21:21 -0700 Subject: [xml2rfc] .xml2rfc.rc? In-Reply-To: <20040702182110.GA5262@1-4-5.net> References: <20040702182110.GA5262@1-4-5.net> Message-ID: <20040702202121.GA7446@1-4-5.net> On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 11:21:10AM -0700, David Meyer wrote: >> I'm having a little trouble getting this to work. I'm >> trying to set it up so exernal refs don't have to be in >> the current working directory. This is what I have: Sorry folks, I see that you need to have a copy of this where ever your source file is. Thanks, Dave From: dmm@1-4-5.net (David Meyer) Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 11:21:10 -0700 Subject: [xml2rfc] .xml2rfc.rc? Message-ID: <20040702182110.GA5262@1-4-5.net> I'm having a little trouble getting this to work. I'm trying to set it up so exernal refs don't have to be in the current working directory. This is what I have: global env tcl_platform if {![string compare $tcl_platform(platform) windows]} { set sep ";" } else { set sep ":" } if {[catch { set env(XML_LIBRARY) } library]} { set library "" append library $sep~/IETF/Drafts/xml/rfc append library $sep~/IETF/Drafts/xml/id } set nativeD [file nativename $inputD] if {[lsearch [split $library $sep] $nativeD] < 0} { set library "$nativeD$sep$library" } set env(XML_LIBRARY) $library Is there some obvious problem here? There's not a lot of diagnostics available, so any help much appreciated. Thanks, Dave From: dmm@1-4-5.net (David Meyer) Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 11:01:30 -0700 Subject: [xml2rfc] getting xml2rfc to output the category (info, bcp, etc) Message-ID: <20040702180130.GA4987@1-4-5.net> I have specificed the my category in the rfc element, but it's not (apparently) output anywhere. The reason I ask is because I like to put a category header on my drafts so people can see what I intend (I like to have it WG chair as well). Anyway to do this? Thanks, Dave From: dperkins@dsperkins.com (David T. Perkins) Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2004 10:29:40 -0700 Subject: [xml2rfc] Question on References.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20040702102306.024cad50@127.0.0.1> HI, Why do you believe that terms should be used instead of numbers? PS xml2rfc allows you to specify generation of terms or numbers. Its a processing instruction. (terms) or (numbers) At 08:13 PM 7/1/2004 -0400, Russ White wrote: >It seems the xml2rfc tool only knows how to do references as numbers--one >of the specific nits I always look for when editing docs is that all the >references should be some short phrase indicating the reference, rather >than a number. In other words, rather than using [1], you should really use >[BGP-4]. > >How would I go about changing the ref's in my final output from xml2rfc to >use words I've put in, rather than [1], [2], etc. I've tried putting a >title on the tag, but that doesn't seem to work. > >Thoughts? > >Russ Regards, /david t. perkins From: gwz@cisco.com (Glen Zorn) Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 08:54:09 -0700 Subject: [xml2rfc] Question on References.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <00f501c4604c$e253f2f0$0202a8c0@amer.cisco.com> xml2rfc-admin@lists.xml.resource.org writes: > It seems the xml2rfc tool only knows how to do references as > numbers--one of the specific nits I always look for when editing docs > is that all the references should be some short phrase indicating the > reference, rather than a number. In other words, rather than using > [1], you should really use [BGP-4]. > > How would I go about changing the ref's in my final output from > xml2rfc to use words I've put in, rather than [1], [2], etc. I've > tried putting a title on the tag, but that doesn't seem > to work. You can enable this by putting in the processing instruction block at the top of the XML file. If you want the references sorted, too, add the line in the same area. Both options default to "no" and are mentioned (along with others) in the readme file (http://xml.resource.org/authoring/README.html). > > Thoughts? > > Russ > > __________________________________ > riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone > > > _______________________________________________ > xml2rfc mailing list > xml2rfc@lists.xml.resource.org > http://lists.xml.resource.org/mailman/listinfo/xml2rfc Hope this helps, ~gwz "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither..." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 "It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets." -- Voltaire From: falk@ISI.EDU (Aaron Falk) Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 08:48:03 -0700 Subject: [xml2rfc] Question on References.... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <33D63166-CC3F-11D8-9500-000A95DBDB84@isi.edu> Hi Russ- I think it's just a matter of including at the top of your document. Then the anchor string (as in ) appears as the citation tag. The only documentation I know of is in http://xml.resource.org/authoring/README.html#anchor7 Hope this helps, --aaron On Jul 1, 2004, at 5:13 PM, Russ White wrote: > > It seems the xml2rfc tool only knows how to do references as > numbers--one > of the specific nits I always look for when editing docs is that all > the > references should be some short phrase indicating the reference, rather > than a number. In other words, rather than using [1], you should > really use > [BGP-4]. > > How would I go about changing the ref's in my final output from > xml2rfc to > use words I've put in, rather than [1], [2], etc. I've tried putting a > title on the tag, but that doesn't seem to work. > > Thoughts? > > Russ > > __________________________________ > riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone > > > _______________________________________________ > xml2rfc mailing list > xml2rfc@lists.xml.resource.org > http://lists.xml.resource.org/mailman/listinfo/xml2rfc From: Russ White (Russ White) Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 11:32:06 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) Subject: [xml2rfc] Question on References.... In-Reply-To: <40E57E67.3000902@gmx.de> References: <40E57E67.3000902@gmx.de> Message-ID: > Use > > > > Best regards, Julian Thanks! :-) Russ __________________________________ riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone From: julian.reschke@gmx.de (Julian Reschke) Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2004 17:25:27 +0200 Subject: [xml2rfc] Question on References.... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <40E57E67.3000902@gmx.de> Russ White wrote: > It seems the xml2rfc tool only knows how to do references as numbers--one > of the specific nits I always look for when editing docs is that all the > references should be some short phrase indicating the reference, rather > than a number. In other words, rather than using [1], you should really use > [BGP-4]. > > How would I go about changing the ref's in my final output from xml2rfc to > use words I've put in, rather than [1], [2], etc. I've tried putting a > title on the tag, but that doesn't seem to work. > > Thoughts? Use Best regards, Julian -- bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760 From: gk@ninebynine.org (Graham Klyne) Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2004 16:19:37 +0100 Subject: [xml2rfc] A couple of observations about XML2RFC (online service) Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20040702161220.00b81d38@127.0.0.1> Hi, I've just spotted a couple of minor problems with the online XML2RFC service (one maybe applicable to the software): ... (1) not ignoring content of XML comments: [[ ]] generates an error message concerning the commented include statement (I have inlined the actual included text for online processing). ... (2) The online service won't accept URI as well as file name. I recognize this isn't strictly a problem with the service, but with HTML forms handling and file upload. But, there is a general expectation (among some web developers, at least) that web resources can/should be usable like local files. Some services provide a mechanism to specify a URI _or_ to upload a file; e.g. http://validator.w3.org/ ... #g ------------ Graham Klyne For email: http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact From: Russ White (Russ White) Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 20:13:04 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) Subject: [xml2rfc] Question on References.... Message-ID: It seems the xml2rfc tool only knows how to do references as numbers--one of the specific nits I always look for when editing docs is that all the references should be some short phrase indicating the reference, rather than a number. In other words, rather than using [1], you should really use [BGP-4]. How would I go about changing the ref's in my final output from xml2rfc to use words I've put in, rather than [1], [2], etc. I've tried putting a title on the tag, but that doesn't seem to work. Thoughts? Russ __________________________________ riw@cisco.com CCIE <>< Grace Alone From: clive@demon.net (Clive D.W. Feather) Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 09:32:34 +0100 Subject: [xml2rfc] Consistency In-Reply-To: <09A758B9-C9E0-11D8-8BCE-000A95CA7FAE@dbc.mtview.ca.us> References: <20040629142244.GM96881@finch-staff-1.thus.net> <09A758B9-C9E0-11D8-8BCE-000A95CA7FAE@dbc.mtview.ca.us> Message-ID: <20040701083234.GE34093@finch-staff-1.thus.net> Marshall Rose said: >> Is there a reason for this inconsistency, or is it going to be fixed? > there are lots of differences in the formatting between the .txt and > .html output, the people who designed the html output said it looked > better that way. i can't get too worked up over it. Um, you misunderstand my point (perhaps because I didn't make it very well). I'm happy that the HTML and TXT versions should be different. But the HTML version is inconsistent in itself: * In the table of contents, $ has a dot after it for References sections, but not for "Author's Address". * In the table of contents, References sections are unnumbered and at the top level, but in the body of the document they are numbered and at sub-levels. Furthermore, the "References" section in the document isn't listed in the ToC at all. * The HTML version puts a horizontal bar and [TOC] link between top level sections *only*, and not between sub-sections, *EXCEPT* between References and Normative References and between Normative References and Informative References, where there are bars even though consistency with the rest of the document says there shouldn't be. Hope that makes it clearer. -- Clive D.W. Feather | Work: | Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 Internet Expert | Home: | Fax: +44 870 051 9937 Demon Internet | WWW: http://www.davros.org | Mobile: +44 7973 377646 Thus plc | |