Why doesn't the "strict" mode recognize = "appendix"?

inside . In the DTD it appears to be present but not referenced, so this probably should be cleaned up. > ... Best regards, Julian From yaacov.weingarten@nsn.com Thu Apr 14 07:02:12 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xml2rfc@ietfc.amsl.com Delivered-To: xml2rfc@ietfc.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FF21E066B for ; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 07:02:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.665 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.665 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.934, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OE31NA6WI+w4 for ; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 07:02:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (demumfd001.nsn-inter.net [93.183.12.32]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92822E069F for ; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 07:02:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.129.55]) by demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id p3EE29g2004473 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 14 Apr 2011 16:02:10 +0200 Received: from demuexc025.nsn-intra.net (demuexc025.nsn-intra.net [10.159.32.12]) by demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id p3EE29sZ013336; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 16:02:09 +0200 Received: from DEMUEXC013.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.128.24]) by demuexc025.nsn-intra.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 14 Apr 2011 16:01:30 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1255" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 16:01:27 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4DA6B358.9050301@gmx.de> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [xml2rfc] Why doesn't the "strict" mode recognize "appendix"? Thread-Index: Acv6f9xe+IDShRJrQNW02qnKDXJ0jQALCxcA References: <4DA6B358.9050301@gmx.de> From: "Weingarten, Yaacov (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)" To: "ext Julian Reschke" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Apr 2011 14:01:30.0555 (UTC) FILETIME=[747848B0:01CBFAAC] Cc: xml2rfc@ietf.org Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Why doesn't the "strict" mode recognize "appendix"? X-BeenThere: xml2rfc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 14:02:12 -0000 Hi, I followed your advice - moved the before the appendix, = and then changed to

and

and then I received an = error message that said that back only accepts (references*,section*) !! The non-strict option had no problems! What am I doing wrong? Thanx >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ext Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de] >> Sent: =E4 14 =E0=F4=F8=E9=EC 2011 11:42 >> To: Weingarten, Yaacov (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon) >> Cc: xml2rfc@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Why doesn't the "strict" mode recognize >> "appendix"? >>=20 >> On 14.04.2011 10:23, Weingarten, Yaacov (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon) = wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > I just updated a I-D and tried running it through xml2rfc =96 in >> "strict" >> > mode it fails and cites the two "appendix" clauses as the problem, >> in >> > the "fast" mode, it completes with the proper txt file. >> > >> > Last time I looked =96 'appendix" was in the DTD =96 has something >> changed? >>=20 >> It is deprecated; just use

inside . >>=20 >> In the DTD it appears to be present but not referenced, so this >> probably >> should be cleaned up. >>=20 >> > ... >>=20 >> Best regards, Julian From julian.reschke@gmx.de Thu Apr 14 07:10:44 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xml2rfc@ietfc.amsl.com Delivered-To: xml2rfc@ietfc.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 395FEE0763 for ; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 07:10:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.926 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.926 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.927, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_27=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sTuauAEOvqYb for ; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 07:10:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.22]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 63340E066B for ; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 07:10:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 14 Apr 2011 14:10:42 -0000 Received: from mail.greenbytes.de (EHLO [192.168.1.131]) [217.91.35.233] by mail.gmx.net (mp030) with SMTP; 14 Apr 2011 16:10:42 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1915285 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX185alYAKWU5YirrHMrD7F8VhSrImGfObLb5AlnR2Z SoIL8bg1p3QPrE Message-ID: <4DA7005E.1030903@gmx.de> Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 16:10:38 +0200 From: Julian Reschke User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Weingarten, Yaacov (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)" References: <4DA6B358.9050301@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1255; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Cc: xml2rfc@ietf.org Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Why doesn't the "strict" mode recognize "appendix"? X-BeenThere: xml2rfc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 14:10:44 -0000 On 14.04.2011 16:01, Weingarten, Yaacov (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon) wrote: > Hi, > > I followed your advice - moved the before the appendix, and then changed to

and

and then I received an error message that said that back only accepts (references*,section*) !! > The non-strict option had no problems! What am I doing wrong? > > Thanx > ... Hard to say without seeing the input. What is the contents of ? It should be just and

elements, in this order. Best regards, Julian From dworley@avaya.com Thu Apr 14 07:13:56 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xml2rfc@ietfc.amsl.com Delivered-To: xml2rfc@ietfc.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E710E0751 for ; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 07:13:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.969 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.969 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.630, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id d7L9lqfgDe9A for ; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 07:13:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88A1DE069F for ; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 07:13:55 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAFMtcU2HCzI1/2dsb2JhbACmZXSkeQKZFoVhBJAM X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.64,211,1301889600"; d="scan'208";a="274790111" Received: from unknown (HELO p-us1-erheast.us1.avaya.com) ([135.11.50.53]) by co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 14 Apr 2011 10:13:54 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.64,211,1301889600"; d="scan'208";a="639047347" Received: from unknown (HELO DC-US1HCEX3.global.avaya.com) ([135.11.52.22]) by p-us1-erheast-out.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 14 Apr 2011 10:13:54 -0400 Received: from DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com ([169.254.2.201]) by DC-US1HCEX3.global.avaya.com ([135.11.52.22]) with mapi; Thu, 14 Apr 2011 10:13:54 -0400 From: "Worley, Dale R (Dale)" To: "Weingarten, Yaacov (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)" , ext Julian Reschke Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 10:12:22 -0400 Thread-Topic: [xml2rfc] Why doesn't the "strict" mode recognize "appendix"? Thread-Index: Acv6f9xe+IDShRJrQNW02qnKDXJ0jQALCxcAAAB7/ao= Message-ID: References: <4DA6B358.9050301@gmx.de>, In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "xml2rfc@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Why doesn't the "strict" mode recognize "appendix"? X-BeenThere: xml2rfc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 14:13:56 -0000 ________________________________________ From: xml2rfc-bounces@ietf.org [xml2rfc-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Wein= garten, Yaacov (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon) [yaacov.weingarten@nsn.com] I followed your advice - moved the before the appendix, an= d then changed to

and

and then I received an error = message that said that back only accepts (references*,section*) !! _______________________________________________ The text "(references*,section*)" is a regexp (more or less) telling what a= re allowed contents for . If I read it correctly, it means "zero or = more followed by zero or more

". I would guess that = your

is before a . Dale From dhc2@dcrocker.net Mon Apr 25 10:55:57 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xml2rfc@ietfc.amsl.com Delivered-To: xml2rfc@ietfc.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60993E06E1 for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 10:55:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RnkGV2HGjYbN for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 10:55:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from yard.public.resource.org (ns1.media.org [192.101.98.172]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3290E06A7 for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 10:55:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by yard.public.resource.org (8.14.2/8.14.2/Debian-2build1) with ESMTP id p3PHtr96031180 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 10:55:54 -0700 Received: from [192.168.1.3] (adsl-67-127-56-68.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [67.127.56.68]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p3PHtlVE016722 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 10:55:53 -0700 Message-ID: <4DB5B598.1030608@dcrocker.net> Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 10:55:36 -0700 From: Dave CROCKER Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: xml2rfc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Mon, 25 Apr 2011 10:55:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [xml2rfc] non-IETF copyright? X-BeenThere: xml2rfc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 17:55:57 -0000 Folks, As I recall, xml2rfc can be used for more than IETF I-D and RFC production. As such it at least needs to have different copyright information, including not having the "Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements" section at the end. I'm not finding documentation for how to do this. helps, but does nothing about the ending section. Any guidance? Thanks. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com Tue Apr 26 12:33:32 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xml2rfc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xml2rfc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F8AFE0763 for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 12:33:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -99.685 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.685 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.185, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5dvdvLdxJA8Z for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 12:33:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from yard.public.resource.org (ns1.media.org [192.101.98.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8496FE07F2 for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 12:33:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gx0-f171.google.com (mail-gx0-f171.google.com [209.85.161.171]) by yard.public.resource.org (8.14.2/8.14.2/Debian-2build1) with ESMTP id p3QJXTXt031013 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 12:33:31 -0700 Received: by gxk22 with SMTP id 22so449260gxk.2 for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 12:33:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=dZsDxgmwWG1qcmUn1NXGtO8tUzhEFzD5Mqk4CQKUWQs=; b=BNWctzWpXCP20bPJ3zvFyDHdgeZTPulIGx1GgJKSBC/E/aaZebHAhSPyA7oImasYpx cz2f+bD9NUHDcMRwfzCmFdpWFQo3dIr9ZdZmJhhuammvwJTzOLglWfvH1gL+4Dzmo1Nv PBI9LtJLrjhfmIP3q0rEd5w/lEmacsn8lOYNg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=x5Dwe06tCRaefAtChf6nNZqSArZVma/IvslxiIArVG/rNkj9biDJpiP6VbnLeGsHmX 31cFR130Veqp6aoXoBx6bbgtL5ZrYITF4JTEsqmuAA7FMi4PEtPvRPVhx2xSSeeiE08V Iue+3CcmcezCOj3pswgNjin0yjCELYao6Y+dw= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.146.164.11 with SMTP id m11mr999516yae.20.1303846404008; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 12:33:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.147.170.2 with HTTP; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 12:33:23 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4DB5B598.1030608@dcrocker.net> References: <4DB5B598.1030608@dcrocker.net> Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 21:33:23 +0200 Message-ID: From: Frank Ellermann To: dcrocker Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: xml2rfc Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] non-IETF copyright? X-BeenThere: xml2rfc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 19:33:32 -0000 On 25 April 2011 19:55, Dave CROCKER wrote: > As I recall, xml2rfc can be used for more than IETF I-D and RFC > production. Yes, it can generate slide shows (I never tested this feature) and "private" drafts (like an I-D, minus boilerplates). That used to work fine three years ago, therefore my search for "xml2rfc private" hopefully produced a relevant hit: http://osdir.com/ml/text.xml.rfc/2006-06/msg00026.html P.S.: Sorry, my private reply was an error, now resent to the list. From dcrocker@bbiw.net Fri Apr 29 09:12:55 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xml2rfc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xml2rfc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9691CE06A2 for ; Fri, 29 Apr 2011 09:12:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-3.300, BAYES_50=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xSh64pbNYoCh for ; Fri, 29 Apr 2011 09:12:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from yard.public.resource.org (ns1.media.org [192.101.98.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D853E06AD for ; Fri, 29 Apr 2011 09:12:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by yard.public.resource.org (8.14.2/8.14.2/Debian-2build1) with ESMTP id p3TGCnfI023339 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Fri, 29 Apr 2011 09:12:50 -0700 Received: from [192.168.1.4] (adsl-67-127-56-68.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [67.127.56.68]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p3TGCh96021082 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 29 Apr 2011 09:12:48 -0700 Message-ID: <4DBAE379.8040509@bbiw.net> Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 09:12:41 -0700 From: Dave CROCKER Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: xml2rfc References: <4DB5B598.1030608@dcrocker.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Fri, 29 Apr 2011 09:12:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 09:22:26 -0700 Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] non-IETF copyright? X-BeenThere: xml2rfc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 16:12:55 -0000 >> As I recall, xml2rfc can be used for more than IETF I-D and RFC >> production. > > Yes, it can generate slide shows (I never tested this feature) and > "private" drafts (like an I-D, minus boilerplates). That used to > work fine three years ago, therefore my search for "xml2rfc private" > hopefully produced a relevant hit: > > http://osdir.com/ml/text.xml.rfc/2006-06/msg00026.html Excellent. That seemed to remove all of the problematic text. In particular: Strips out all of the IETF-related copyright and IPR stuff and puts this new string in the upper right corner. It's a hokey way to add new copyright info, but I think it suffices for the formalities. Thanks! d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net