From randy@psg.com Fri Jul 1 17:16:41 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 6DE169E8013 for ; Fri, 1 Jul 2011 17:16:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] 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 WfRGkGMmhJ-b for ; Fri, 1 Jul 2011 17:16:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::36]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4513F9E8005 for ; Fri, 1 Jul 2011 17:16:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=rair.psg.com.psg.com) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Qcnsl-000A1B-Em for xml2rfc@ietf.org; Sat, 02 Jul 2011 00:16:23 +0000 Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2011 09:16:22 +0900 Message-ID: From: Randy Bush To: xml2rfc list In-Reply-To: References: <92B731F2-D166-46FF-A04F-E656CE70796F@amsl.com> <4E0892CE.2020908@gmx.de> <4E097B31.4030602@gmx.de> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/22.3 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] rsync issue - Re: missing ref files 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: Sat, 02 Jul 2011 00:16:41 -0000 rsync1.xml.resource.org seems to be fully functional again and to have current data. on your first rsync, you may get a largish refresh due to fresher file dates. of course, rsync3.xml.resource.org seems to also be fully functional. this list would be a good place to which to report problems. randy, who was the original whiner about rsync1 From randy@psg.com Fri Jul 1 17:29:02 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 B87EF9E802E for ; Fri, 1 Jul 2011 17:29:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] 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 sJBXN42mtdEp for ; Fri, 1 Jul 2011 17:29:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::36]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BDD49E803D for ; Fri, 1 Jul 2011 17:29:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=rair.psg.com.psg.com) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Qco4z-000A3a-BD; Sat, 02 Jul 2011 00:29:01 +0000 Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2011 09:29:00 +0900 Message-ID: From: Randy Bush To: Nico Williams In-Reply-To: References: <92B731F2-D166-46FF-A04F-E656CE70796F@amsl.com> <4E0892CE.2020908@gmx.de> <4E097B31.4030602@gmx.de> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/22.3 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: xml2rfc list Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] rsync issue - Re: missing ref files 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: Sat, 02 Jul 2011 00:29:02 -0000 > Before xml2rfc I used to write I-Ds as manually formatted nroff! From hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com Sat Jul 2 12:34:15 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 116A611E80A6 for ; Sat, 2 Jul 2011 12:34:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.799 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, J_CHICKENPOX_83=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, 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 wUaSkKa6fB9x for ; Sat, 2 Jul 2011 12:34:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pv0-f172.google.com (mail-pv0-f172.google.com [74.125.83.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 920E222800F for ; Sat, 2 Jul 2011 12:34:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pvh18 with SMTP id 18so5033856pvh.31 for ; Sat, 02 Jul 2011 12:34:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=mI7k9K33fJkEpT883Clt6q+jxa4FZjI+nZbPkcdL7Ks=; b=ionFJNpUR1MIIqoS2d/JXuWCgbPOYRqtpaijiaxXdXpiDIcNrp2ULeQZTyvECFWpFs nJWN3xoDMtlBAU1vZxTKPO1hueXrNuc0K2Z2JI7yBMKmSXFaNsE0h5Szb2QKm4pzZOyR yGbdTS6TBzThVAmQBR+dawXxuZ6GlBHUzi1lw= Received: by 10.143.163.20 with SMTP id q20mr2067900wfo.209.1309635254163; Sat, 02 Jul 2011 12:34:14 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.142.89.6 with HTTP; Sat, 2 Jul 2011 12:33:54 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4E0D02DA.5030601@gmail.com> References: <92B731F2-D166-46FF-A04F-E656CE70796F@amsl.com> <4E0892CE.2020908@gmx.de> <4E097B31.4030602@gmx.de> <4E0CF485.1050206@gmx.de> <4E0D02DA.5030601@gmail.com> From: Frank Ellermann Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2011 21:33:54 +0200 Message-ID: To: Dzonatas Sol Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: xml2rfc@ietf.org Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] rsync issue - Re: missing ref files 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: Sat, 02 Jul 2011 19:34:15 -0000 On 1 July 2011 01:12, Dzonatas Sol wrote: > What is expected with ? My xmlcheck.rex or xmlcheck.kex won't let me do that... :-) But (for me) XML is still less obscure than SGML or ASN.1 From nico@cryptonector.com Mon Jul 4 15:45:59 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 6B84C21F87DD for ; Mon, 4 Jul 2011 15:45:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622] 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 NJlWvTfEvFb4 for ; Mon, 4 Jul 2011 15:45:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from homiemail-a32.g.dreamhost.com (caiajhbdcagg.dreamhost.com [208.97.132.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3505A21F87E0 for ; Mon, 4 Jul 2011 15:45:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from homiemail-a32.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a32.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8CB0584059 for ; Mon, 4 Jul 2011 15:45:57 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=cryptonector.com; h=mime-version :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc: content-type; q=dns; s=cryptonector.com; b=wwj5Sli+hXSb4XSNw7qRM w3abHcE9Q4L+fICwt0kTADwfYbdOXk0yWMnCsjMaQYW95cB+wDQ5Kj7E8asNvPbC LzXSXVpFVYIcIg2k4aDXQrxSxiO+AXnXAjxp9/QQgKYcQfd8yl0R3tmkLnvWPvdP udVhHcPXEyJ9tNY0Wx0YrE= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h= mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from :to:cc:content-type; s=cryptonector.com; bh=nMG85KjcN0GuyKJcmXoN wZQ77RY=; b=Fcqn522+iBpTiLjmksfQOCF9//kvC4oIGlMwNWPwrlYqTTse3jfr swbo6kcRMAceiFnvZCAQAK0fZ6SV0RX5yOQ3n3C6HSemC/Lh+FyUh5GlPMyT4Us0 jcES1SYxyWJ4wTDGJzNOrJ18ZgJUi3QeA7Jlfr1s9Hhb6uaMWZzczG0= Received: from mail-pv0-f172.google.com (mail-pv0-f172.google.com [74.125.83.172]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a32.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 93B49584058 for ; Mon, 4 Jul 2011 15:45:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pvh18 with SMTP id 18so7172398pvh.31 for ; Mon, 04 Jul 2011 15:45:57 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.68.35.36 with SMTP id e4mr7794122pbj.320.1309819557044; Mon, 04 Jul 2011 15:45:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.50.231 with HTTP; Mon, 4 Jul 2011 15:45:57 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <92B731F2-D166-46FF-A04F-E656CE70796F@amsl.com> <4E0892CE.2020908@gmx.de> <4E097B31.4030602@gmx.de> Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2011 17:45:57 -0500 Message-ID: From: Nico Williams To: Randy Bush Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: xml2rfc list Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] rsync issue - Re: missing ref files 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: Mon, 04 Jul 2011 22:45:59 -0000 On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 7:29 PM, Randy Bush wrote: >> Before xml2rfc I used to write I-Ds as manually formatted > > nroff! What can I say, for me it seemed easier to use VIM and my paginator than nroff. I much prefer xml2rfc to either of those two. If I could get LyX to output formatted I-Ds I might use that, but there's only so much time -- a WYSIWYG I-D editor is hardly a pressing need. In any case, now that the rsync servers are back, I suppose this dead horse can get left alone, finally. (Until the next time!) Nico -- From randy@psg.com Mon Jul 4 15:49:28 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 A64A31F0C34 for ; Mon, 4 Jul 2011 15:49:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.57 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.57 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.029, BAYES_00=-2.599] 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 nKJffN8NOBan for ; Mon, 4 Jul 2011 15:49:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::36]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1342A21F876A for ; Mon, 4 Jul 2011 15:49:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=rair.psg.com.psg.com) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1QdrxG-000ODs-Az; Mon, 04 Jul 2011 22:49:26 +0000 Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2011 07:49:25 +0900 Message-ID: From: Randy Bush To: Nico Williams In-Reply-To: References: <92B731F2-D166-46FF-A04F-E656CE70796F@amsl.com> <4E0892CE.2020908@gmx.de> <4E097B31.4030602@gmx.de> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/22.3 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: xml2rfc list Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] rsync issue - Re: missing ref files 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: Mon, 04 Jul 2011 22:49:28 -0000 > In any case, now that the rsync servers are back just to be sure. as far as i know o rsync3 has been working all along o rsync1 had not been updating data but was serving o rsync1 is now very current and still serving randy From brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com Mon Jul 25 14:33:51 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 5F24111E80B1 for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 14:33:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.613 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.613 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.014, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, 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 Lq5LATwVDXv8 for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 14:33:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gw0-f44.google.com (mail-gw0-f44.google.com [74.125.83.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80C7511E80AC for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 14:33:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by gwb20 with SMTP id 20so3318910gwb.31 for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 14:33:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=LYL6t20cP1zbP+Us18oAY/MA1rc0T+84wHcLWgidVbs=; b=OyxpWvG3bXSWLiuRVDDfoW5gXYDAF4ROzzDtRdjCTSOP+M2JynkbbiWNTK/riHjYdv crEtYt/YzuhxhxaGRzeDRnKt8TM1jQ6lZNHy2c8GoyB+lpxkYjiFfTjzLkRZhEatubUh l6efOWg4pidLSryZ38oDP1US3UVauF1Y1Wziw= Received: by 10.231.117.79 with SMTP id p15mr5094428ibq.29.1311629629819; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 14:33:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [130.216.38.124] (stf-brian.sfac.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.38.124]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id e1sm854082ict.12.2011.07.25.14.33.48 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 25 Jul 2011 14:33:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4E2DE139.5040205@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 09:33:45 +1200 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: xml2rfc@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [xml2rfc] Development version dislikes List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 21:33:51 -0000 What's going on with the development version at http://xml.resource.org/experimental.html? It barfs on what I thought was a bog standard format since Day One of xml2rfc: gives ERROR: unable to parse the XML document: INPUT: StartTag: invalid element name, line 18, column 2 The production version is fine. Regards Brian Carpenter From julian.reschke@gmx.de Mon Jul 25 15:01:43 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 6D58621F8AFE for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 15:01:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-4.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 3z1f5jO9Mu7O for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 15:01:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id EC68421F8AEA for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 15:01:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 25 Jul 2011 22:01:40 -0000 Received: from dhcp-14e3.meeting.ietf.org (EHLO [130.129.20.227]) [130.129.20.227] by mail.gmx.net (mp049) with SMTP; 26 Jul 2011 00:01:40 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1915285 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19gkhA8c/VgzlMIGYt39tSFlIWEslzrJOnVHk+kLB QP03oKn+4evgVz Message-ID: <4E2DE7C0.5080108@gmx.de> Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 00:01:36 +0200 From: Julian Reschke User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian E Carpenter References: <4E2DE139.5040205@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4E2DE139.5040205@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Cc: xml2rfc@ietf.org Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Development version dislikes List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 22:01:43 -0000 On 2011-07-25 23:33, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > What's going on with the development version at http://xml.resource.org/experimental.html? > It barfs on what I thought was a bog standard format since Day One of xml2rfc: > > > > gives > > ERROR: unable to parse the XML document: > INPUT: StartTag: invalid element name, line 18, column 2 > > The production version is fine. Isn't there a ".xml" missing? Best regards, Julian From elwynd@dial.pipex.com Mon Jul 25 15:26:49 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 1657A11E80CF for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 15:26:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 7SDnvfQurCYD for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 15:26:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from b.painless.aaisp.net.uk (b.painless.aaisp.net.uk [IPv6:2001:8b0:0:30::51bb:1e34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2489611E80C7 for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 15:26:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dhcp-172d.meeting.ietf.org ([130.129.23.45]) by b.painless.aaisp.net.uk with esmtpa (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QlTbn-00024E-Uj; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 23:26:44 +0100 Message-ID: <4E2DED9C.2050601@dial.pipex.com> Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 23:26:36 +0100 From: Elwyn Davies User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20081209) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian E Carpenter References: <4E2DE139.5040205@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4E2DE139.5040205@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: xml2rfc@ietf.org Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Development version dislikes List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 22:26:49 -0000 rumour has it (source= RFC Editor desk at ietf81) that what you are seeing is the redeveloped code. Truly bleeding edge. But I only heard this about 1 hour ago and I haven't done my testing yet. /Elwyn Brian E Carpenter wrote: > What's going on with the development version at http://xml.resource.org/experimental.html? > It barfs on what I thought was a bog standard format since Day One of xml2rfc: > > > > gives > > ERROR: unable to parse the XML document: > INPUT: StartTag: invalid element name, line 18, column 2 > > The production version is fine. > > Regards > Brian Carpenter > > > _______________________________________________ > xml2rfc mailing list > xml2rfc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xml2rfc > From julian.reschke@gmx.de Mon Jul 25 15:36:05 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 36B1D11E80DC for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 15:36:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.932 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.932 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-3.333, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 96FkTMQUZ9yX for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 15:36:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 1929611E80CF for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 15:36:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 25 Jul 2011 22:36:02 -0000 Received: from dhcp-14e3.meeting.ietf.org (EHLO [130.129.20.227]) [130.129.20.227] by mail.gmx.net (mp062) with SMTP; 26 Jul 2011 00:36:02 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1915285 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18mb9dwWe8mw+/XiEUjsiFEDja5XUn63Protkr7fP wmykoDRRLaAewi Message-ID: <4E2DEFCD.6070704@gmx.de> Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 00:35:57 +0200 From: Julian Reschke User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: elwynd@dial.pipex.com References: <4E2DE139.5040205@gmail.com> <4E2DED9C.2050601@dial.pipex.com> In-Reply-To: <4E2DED9C.2050601@dial.pipex.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Cc: xml2rfc@ietf.org Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Development version dislikes List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 22:36:05 -0000 On 2011-07-26 00:26, Elwyn Davies wrote: > rumour has it (source= RFC Editor desk at ietf81) that what you are > seeing is the redeveloped code. Truly bleeding edge. But I only heard > this about 1 hour ago and I haven't done my testing yet. > ... Well, http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119 returns 404. If this worked before, it was an ugly hack. Best regards, Julian From tony@att.com Mon Jul 25 15:58:02 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 9E30711E80D7 for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 15:58:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.4 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.4 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.199, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 eaH43J1Al5cM for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 15:58:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail119.messagelabs.com (mail119.messagelabs.com [216.82.241.195]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8B4511E80DD for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 15:58:01 -0700 (PDT) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: tony@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-15.tower-119.messagelabs.com!1311634680!22196734!1 X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.17; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.145] Received: (qmail 8867 invoked from network); 25 Jul 2011 22:58:00 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp6.sbc.com (HELO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.145) by server-15.tower-119.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 25 Jul 2011 22:58:00 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p6PMwPSq000932 for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 18:58:26 -0400 Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p6PMwMKU000920 for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 18:58:22 -0400 Received: from aldc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p6PMvuef015978 for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 18:57:56 -0400 Received: from dns.maillennium.att.com (mailgw1.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p6PMvqPF015945 for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 18:57:53 -0400 Received: from [135.70.201.224] (vpn-135-70-201-224.vpn.east.att.com[135.70.201.224]) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with ESMTP id <20110725225752gw100e4l73e> (Authid: tony); Mon, 25 Jul 2011 22:57:52 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.70.201.224] Message-ID: <4E2DF4EB.4010009@att.com> Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 18:57:47 -0400 From: Tony Hansen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian E Carpenter References: <4E2DE139.5040205@gmail.com> <4E2DED9C.2050601@dial.pipex.com> In-Reply-To: <4E2DED9C.2050601@dial.pipex.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: xml2rfc@ietf.org Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Development version dislikes List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 22:58:02 -0000 Yes, xml.resource.org/experimental.html is now pointing at the new python-based xml2rfc code, as of the code sprint on Saturday. (Up until Saturday, experimental.html did an auto-redirect to index.html.) In my own testing, about 1/6 of the current internet drafts that XML pass through with no issues whatsoever. The new code is *much* pickier about certain things, even pickier than the "strict mode checking" that has been the default setting on the standard page since March. One of the conversations I had yesterday with a number of people was: of the things that it's being picky about, which are things we really *want* it to be picky about? Julian notes that the ENTITY reference is missing the trailing .xml, which I'm surprised actually worked. Is that something that *should* be fixed? My feeling is that the answer should be "no". Tony Hansen PS. Note that, as Elwyn puts it, this truly is bleeding edge. In addition to the pickiness mentioned above, a variety of the input files cause exceptions, all of which need to be fixed. On 7/25/2011 6:26 PM, Elwyn Davies wrote: > rumour has it (source= RFC Editor desk at ietf81) that what you are > seeing is the redeveloped code. Truly bleeding edge. But I only > heard this about 1 hour ago and I haven't done my testing yet. > > /Elwyn > > Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> What's going on with the development version at >> http://xml.resource.org/experimental.html? >> It barfs on what I thought was a bog standard format since Day One of >> xml2rfc: >> >> > 'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119'> >> >> gives >> >> ERROR: unable to parse the XML document: >> INPUT: StartTag: invalid element name, line 18, column 2 >> >> The production version is fine. >> >> Regards >> Brian Carpenter >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> xml2rfc mailing list >> xml2rfc@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xml2rfc > > _______________________________________________ > xml2rfc mailing list > xml2rfc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xml2rfc From brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com Mon Jul 25 16:56:28 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 86A9111E80DE for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 16:56:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.612 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.612 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.013, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, 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 3d81EFTefv96 for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 16:56:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DDFE11E80DB for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 16:56:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by iye7 with SMTP id 7so6378216iye.31 for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 16:56:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=/8EFicFg98R1aOQS10V6yRF+5NEWOxehLBx9cvTQhHI=; b=K00z01LaBQLVyhMn0D3QI5uDkJqRVowkdjbqsk/kCq4qe4sU5AwOXLvyoaX9tTGp8T Oay+5Bq347r3eAa6ch3Fo2AUWEWag7AWoYSJyNbxhwXgXFidP7f3Vl5W3IF7rLmBbrzV E1D7sB83sFT62sa07v+OJ98OVMZp1bCgxrMpM= Received: by 10.231.47.72 with SMTP id m8mr5087062ibf.164.1311638186822; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 16:56:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [130.216.38.124] (stf-brian.sfac.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.38.124]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id vj5sm6766794icb.23.2011.07.25.16.56.24 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 25 Jul 2011 16:56:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4E2E02A1.7060305@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 11:56:17 +1200 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Julian Reschke References: <4E2DE139.5040205@gmail.com> <4E2DE7C0.5080108@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: <4E2DE7C0.5080108@gmx.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: xml2rfc@ietf.org Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Development version dislikes List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 23:56:28 -0000 On 2011-07-26 10:01, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 2011-07-25 23:33, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> What's going on with the development version at >> http://xml.resource.org/experimental.html? >> It barfs on what I thought was a bog standard format since Day One of >> xml2rfc: >> >> > 'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119'> >> >> gives >> >> ERROR: unable to parse the XML document: >> INPUT: StartTag: invalid element name, line 18, column 2 >> >> The production version is fine. > > Isn't there a ".xml" missing? It's missing in most draft*.xml files I have made since 2005. However, fixing this does not change the error message. A few experiments show that it is the name RFC2119 (or anything I have tried replacing it with) that causes the barfing. A sample file xml2rfc-1.xml that Elwyn provided with his original tutorial in 2006 doesn't show this problem, although it uses the identical form of ENTITY declaration. So the problem is hiding elsewhere in my file. On 2011-07-26 10:57, Tony Hansen wrote: > In my own testing, about 1/6 of the current internet drafts that XML pass through with no issues whatsoever. The new code is *much* pickier about certain things, even pickier than the "strict mode checking" that has been the default setting on the standard page since March. Which is really not OK; I should have specified that I use "Fast" mode which is supposed to relax the checking. Right now this version is nowhere near being a candidate for production use. Brian From brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com Mon Jul 25 19:40:00 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 E45B511E80EB for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 19:40:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.612 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.612 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.013, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, 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 RCXL8VMyOH+Q for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 19:40:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vx0-f172.google.com (mail-vx0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9EA211E8077 for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 19:39:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by vxi40 with SMTP id 40so23098vxi.31 for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 19:39:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=R020HFlRx+VQMwE9u3FgChVquK2BAXdQTLkG8LCZU74=; b=YIoxFJQSuUSbLqG0cSiq6G6I7Ns/tvB7ua7oJkNc/PXp12MQDdnDl4ZVaw0pPZwNM1 nciUzEoovMtMuIPqDx7Qws3dp38LmxsqIygKdJ15qwxNYtypD4qdA1OMTwlD6p6HrIC0 whT1K6Hol9M1dfSB/PQw7a5rBFieEQWCTp0SI= Received: by 10.220.70.213 with SMTP id e21mr1295721vcj.234.1311647999377; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 19:39:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [130.216.38.124] (stf-brian.sfac.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.38.124]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id o3sm9251vca.26.2011.07.25.19.39.57 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 25 Jul 2011 19:39:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4E2E28FB.3070608@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 14:39:55 +1200 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: xml2rfc References: <4E2DE139.5040205@gmail.com> <4E2DE7C0.5080108@gmx.de> <4E2E02A1.7060305@gmail.com> <4E2E10DA.7060608@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4E2E10DA.7060608@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [xml2rfc] Why development version dislikes List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 02:40:01 -0000 It appears that the new code requires ENTITY definitions to be embedded within the DOCTYPE declaration. This has never been the case before. Thus: ]> I suspect a lot of existing source files would be invalidated by this requirement. Regards Brian > On 2011-07-26 11:56, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> On 2011-07-26 10:01, Julian Reschke wrote: >>> On 2011-07-25 23:33, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >>>> What's going on with the development version at >>>> http://xml.resource.org/experimental.html? >>>> It barfs on what I thought was a bog standard format since Day One of >>>> xml2rfc: >>>> >>>> >>> 'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119'> >>>> >>>> gives >>>> >>>> ERROR: unable to parse the XML document: >>>> INPUT: StartTag: invalid element name, line 18, column 2 >>>> >>>> The production version is fine. >>> Isn't there a ".xml" missing? >> It's missing in most draft*.xml files I have made since 2005. >> However, fixing this does not change the error message. A few >> experiments show that it is the name RFC2119 (or anything I >> have tried replacing it with) that causes the barfing. >> >> A sample file xml2rfc-1.xml that Elwyn provided with his original >> tutorial in 2006 doesn't show this problem, although it uses the >> identical form of ENTITY declaration. So the problem is hiding >> elsewhere in my file. >> >> On 2011-07-26 10:57, Tony Hansen wrote: >> >>> In my own testing, about 1/6 of the current internet drafts that XML pass through with no issues whatsoever. The new code is *much* pickier about certain things, even pickier than the "strict mode checking" that has been the default setting on the standard page since March. >> Which is really not OK; I should have specified that I use "Fast" mode which is supposed >> to relax the checking. >> >> Right now this version is nowhere near being a candidate for production use. >> >> Brian >> From brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com Mon Jul 25 20:02:01 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 8569411E8077 for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 20:02:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.612 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.612 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.013, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, 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 rbNiTQDvZkQe for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 20:02:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qy0-f179.google.com (mail-qy0-f179.google.com [209.85.216.179]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9106811E8071 for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 20:02:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by qyk29 with SMTP id 29so8012qyk.10 for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 20:02:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=si4kaDEqBTuNN6VyluJP4hgPHodZRLpkTlbRGav6wJA=; b=eJ8fTdFa1wsufhXeLtEpd6D5vBFbBU4aBzwG725fPEhjH5hNQAX19y6E3ByT0yPxTB H/1oCS07HBB3Mwz8LR2fdyRUwwtacITf4xw1xxqTQDcX7LFB0m/v7lPXwFvjviw/UUk9 8slLz0YhzHjh1KV+jlsL15E8fyhK2DV78K1B0= Received: by 10.224.173.136 with SMTP id p8mr4038922qaz.374.1311649319869; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 20:01:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [130.216.38.124] (stf-brian.sfac.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.38.124]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id p15sm35143qct.22.2011.07.25.20.01.58 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 25 Jul 2011 20:01:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4E2E2E24.5090508@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:01:56 +1200 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: xml2rfc References: <4E2DE139.5040205@gmail.com> <4E2DE7C0.5080108@gmx.de> <4E2E02A1.7060305@gmail.com> <4E2E10DA.7060608@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4E2E10DA.7060608@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [xml2rfc] Development version is picky about . 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 Jul 2011 03:02:01 -0000 It appears that the new code requires to be embedded in , even in "fast" checking mode. The old version tolerates bare (in "fast" mode). That's another significant compatibility problem for older source files. With that fix and the previously noted 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 6320B21F8B00 for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 21:15:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -99.872 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.872 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.082, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 1wGCWa6ldNJZ for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 21:15:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scintmta01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scintmta01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp [133.2.253.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B16F21F8B0F for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 21:15:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scmse01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp ([133.2.253.231]) by scintmta01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (secret/secret) with SMTP id p6Q4FZSW001767 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 13:15:36 +0900 Received: from (unknown [133.2.206.133]) by scmse01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp with smtp id 3a09_1f42_e98347ce_b73d_11e0_bcb1_001d096c566a; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 13:15:35 +0900 Received: from [IPv6:::1] ([133.2.210.5]:52913) by itmail.it.aoyama.ac.jp with [XMail 1.22 ESMTP Server] id for from ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 13:15:33 +0900 Message-ID: <4E2E3F32.3050509@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 13:14:42 +0900 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Martin_J=2E_D=FCrst=22?= Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100722 Eudora/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian E Carpenter References: <4E2DE139.5040205@gmail.com> <4E2DE7C0.5080108@gmx.de> <4E2E02A1.7060305@gmail.com> <4E2E10DA.7060608@gmail.com> <4E2E28FB.3070608@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4E2E28FB.3070608@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: xml2rfc Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Why development version dislikes List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 04:15:43 -0000 Hello Brian, On 2011/07/26 11:39, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > It appears that the new code requires ENTITY definitions > to be embedded within the DOCTYPE declaration. This has never been > the case before. Thus: > > > 'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml'> > > ]> > > I suspect a lot of existing source files would be invalidated by this > requirement. Sorry, but that would actually be a good thing. Free-standing ENTITY declarations are not allowed by XML. Please see: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#NT-doctypedecl http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#NT-EntityDecl This slipped through the cracks up to now because the Tcl implementation was very ad-hoc. The new implementation uses a parser library, I guess (would be crazy if it didn't). Of all things, we don't want to give the impression that the IETF is calling something XML that isn't. Regards, Martin. From duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp Mon Jul 25 21:19:04 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 ADD0621F8B08 for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 21:19:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -99.869 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.869 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.079, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 dgoO-+nkyPS1 for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 21:19:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scintmta01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scintmta01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp [133.2.253.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C2F021F8B07 for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 21:19:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scmse01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp ([133.2.253.231]) by scintmta01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (secret/secret) with SMTP id p6Q4J3cY004167 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 13:19:03 +0900 Received: from (unknown [133.2.206.133]) by scmse01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp with smtp id 3a08_1429_651b04a8_b73e_11e0_bcb1_001d096c566a; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 13:19:03 +0900 Received: from [IPv6:::1] ([133.2.210.5]:43486) by itmail.it.aoyama.ac.jp with [XMail 1.22 ESMTP Server] id for from ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 13:19:01 +0900 Message-ID: <4E2E3FFE.1040809@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 13:18:06 +0900 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Martin_J=2E_D=FCrst=22?= Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100722 Eudora/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian E Carpenter References: <4E2DE139.5040205@gmail.com> <4E2DE7C0.5080108@gmx.de> <4E2E02A1.7060305@gmail.com> <4E2E10DA.7060608@gmail.com> <4E2E2E24.5090508@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4E2E2E24.5090508@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: xml2rfc Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Development version is picky about . 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 Jul 2011 04:19:04 -0000 On 2011/07/26 12:01, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > It appears that the new code requires to be embedded > in, even in "fast" checking mode. The old version tolerates > bare (in "fast" mode). > > That's another significant compatibility problem for older source files. It's not only a problem for older files, it's also a problem for people who don't know xml2rfc specifics and are used to other, more straightforward markup. I very much encourage the team to evolve the DTD so that there is no need anymore for nesting. (I can give help with the DTD if necessary.) Regards, Martin. From brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com Mon Jul 25 21:37:15 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 5333221F8582 for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 21:37:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.461 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.461 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.162, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, 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 clEFYFaFjuC0 for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 21:37:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pz0-f53.google.com (mail-pz0-f53.google.com [209.85.210.53]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A448221F8571 for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 21:37:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pzk6 with SMTP id 6so144384pzk.26 for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 21:37:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=hOaPXdzdNaqk4OtMjadPaNki/KFfpgZPbx6pkUbZ+C0=; b=xt9lOGoPyl6riZQmMCXiH2nC0kZ4Vau8idh3VB/gsHiy4GwOBzme4XtatXdfnHIyFU pWrFO6Aj9KjZpTUZdgf4TnmzAlhGXiXTB1U5jRcSsoL5y8WLLNzptlOGjpFGK7T3N8ic E065Fp/nLhHupiIZoYKg+1bSORbagAhRZdy24= Received: by 10.68.39.195 with SMTP id r3mr9322359pbk.354.1311655034283; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 21:37:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [130.216.38.124] (stf-brian.sfac.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.38.124]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u6sm125129pbh.64.2011.07.25.21.37.12 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 25 Jul 2011 21:37:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4E2E4475.4070208@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 16:37:09 +1200 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?UTF-8?B?Ik1hcnRpbiBKLiBEw7xyc3Qi?= References: <4E2DE139.5040205@gmail.com> <4E2DE7C0.5080108@gmx.de> <4E2E02A1.7060305@gmail.com> <4E2E10DA.7060608@gmail.com> <4E2E28FB.3070608@gmail.com> <4E2E3F32.3050509@it.aoyama.ac.jp> In-Reply-To: <4E2E3F32.3050509@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: xml2rfc Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Why development version dislikes List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 04:37:15 -0000 On 2011-07-26 16:14, Martin J. D=C3=BCrst wrote: > Hello Brian, >=20 > On 2011/07/26 11:39, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> It appears that the new code requires ENTITY definitions >> to be embedded within the DOCTYPE declaration. This has never been >> the case before. Thus: >> >> > >> > 'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml'>= >> >> ]> >> >> I suspect a lot of existing source files would be invalidated by this >> requirement. >=20 > Sorry, but that would actually be a good thing.=20 Yes, if it is carefully announced and introduced at a specific date. I have no trouble with fixing my source files, but I need to be told. (The diagnostic was quite helpful in that it pointed to exactly the line that was causing the problem, but I could only isolate the problem by a line-by-line comparison with Elwyn's future-proof tutorial example. That's not satisfactory for the entire user population.) Brian > Free-standing ENTITY > declarations are not allowed by XML. Please see: >=20 > http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#NT-doctypedecl > http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#NT-EntityDecl >=20 > This slipped through the cracks up to now because the Tcl implementatio= n > was very ad-hoc. The new implementation uses a parser library, I guess > (would be crazy if it didn't). >=20 > Of all things, we don't want to give the impression that the IETF is > calling something XML that isn't. >=20 > Regards, Martin. >=20 From nico@cryptonector.com Mon Jul 25 22:24:41 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 345E921F877F for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 22:24:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.683 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.683 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.006, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3] 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 QONc4QZgBKHA for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 22:24:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from homiemail-a73.g.dreamhost.com (caiajhbdcagg.dreamhost.com [208.97.132.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BB6821F877D for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 22:24:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from homiemail-a73.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a73.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 424CE1F007C for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 22:24:40 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=cryptonector.com; h=mime-version :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s= cryptonector.com; b=qdrJka8KFb4czhJIteLxZ+0UeJ8SkoAP0JTO4PZy6k5X /c8NNBWyi0Hi1pox5U2xgybFM31i13FFhjfwEbuI6P77KGiUfI8FYKR795CiDVId 7d9zhOs6wegT9LO4KNIr0spkc3M5DAR/Xc61+vF+ACu4tXl2ww1W9YYburlhYbA= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h= mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from :to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s= cryptonector.com; bh=nu2l712s/Mzb5OiqYri0L+jkKCg=; b=VkJOpSYB58L 2sfL9njXTvOlbF/H6P6XwdmucyiAicj0MP7WMX2/sKg/tII5qbvd29A5Ui9OG5U/ hRWM2FNO7S8TWeFb+xs3c4zINVaT3mALqgDCrroVrBk7vUapxkbOMwoE2sDF7PQH u1r+bFemZPNRh058MnfiR4tFWZNG0ApY= Received: from mail-pz0-f53.google.com (mail-pz0-f53.google.com [209.85.210.53]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a73.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 159041F0078 for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 22:24:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pzk6 with SMTP id 6so201504pzk.26 for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 22:24:39 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.68.21.5 with SMTP id r5mr9653322pbe.39.1311657879537; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 22:24:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.48.74 with HTTP; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 22:24:39 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4E2E3FFE.1040809@it.aoyama.ac.jp> References: <4E2DE139.5040205@gmail.com> <4E2DE7C0.5080108@gmx.de> <4E2E02A1.7060305@gmail.com> <4E2E10DA.7060608@gmail.com> <4E2E2E24.5090508@gmail.com> <4E2E3FFE.1040809@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 00:24:39 -0500 Message-ID: From: Nico Williams To: =?UTF-8?Q?Martin_J=2E_D=C3=BCrst?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: xml2rfc Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Development version is picky about . 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 Jul 2011 05:24:41 -0000 On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 11:18 PM, "Martin J. D=C3=BCrst" wrote: > On 2011/07/26 12:01, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> >> It appears that the new code requires =C2=A0to be embedded >> in, even in "fast" checking mode. The old version tolerates >> bare =C2=A0(in "fast" mode). >> >> That's another significant compatibility problem for older source files. > > It's not only a problem for older files, it's also a problem for people w= ho > don't know xml2rfc specifics and are used to other, more straightforward > markup. I very much encourage the team to evolve the DTD so that there is= no > need anymore for nesting. > (I can give help with the DTD if necessary.) I've been doing this right for years, so I won't be affected, but, hear hear! It's quite annoying to have to embed list tags in t tags. Nico -- From tony@att.com Tue Jul 26 07:06:00 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 C93CC21F8A96 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 07:06:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.5 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.099, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 TrCPnt45UEIB for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 07:06:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail119.messagelabs.com (mail119.messagelabs.com [216.82.241.195]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17F6F21F8A7D for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 07:06:00 -0700 (PDT) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: tony@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-3.tower-119.messagelabs.com!1311689159!30917497!1 X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.17; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.145] Received: (qmail 16523 invoked from network); 26 Jul 2011 14:05:59 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp6.sbc.com (HELO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.145) by server-3.tower-119.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 26 Jul 2011 14:05:59 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p6QE6OxE011972 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 10:06:24 -0400 Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p6QE6MAH011929 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 10:06:22 -0400 Received: from aldc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p6QE5uET029932 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 10:05:56 -0400 Received: from mailgw1.maillennium.att.com (dns.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p6QE5r48029879 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 10:05:54 -0400 Received: from [135.70.163.218] (vpn-135-70-163-218.vpn.mwst.att.com[135.70.163.218]) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with ESMTP id <20110726140553gw100e4l7le> (Authid: tony); Tue, 26 Jul 2011 14:05:53 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.70.163.218] Message-ID: <4E2EC9AB.5080805@att.com> Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 10:05:31 -0400 From: Tony Hansen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian E Carpenter References: <4E2DE139.5040205@gmail.com> <4E2DE7C0.5080108@gmx.de> <4E2E02A1.7060305@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4E2E02A1.7060305@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: xml2rfc@ietf.org Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Development version dislikes List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 14:06:00 -0000 On 7/25/2011 7:56 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Right now this version is nowhere near being a candidate for > production use. *Absolutely* not ready. But we needed to be able to start doing tests of it. Tony Hansen From tony@att.com Tue Jul 26 07:54:12 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 3801C11E80E1 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 07:54:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.585 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.585 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.014, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 dlG7tHlDMJOW for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 07:54:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail119.messagelabs.com (mail119.messagelabs.com [216.82.241.195]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22AEE11E808E for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 07:54:11 -0700 (PDT) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: tony@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-3.tower-119.messagelabs.com!1311692050!30928225!1 X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.17; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.145] Received: (qmail 5993 invoked from network); 26 Jul 2011 14:54:10 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp6.sbc.com (HELO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.145) by server-3.tower-119.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 26 Jul 2011 14:54:10 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p6QEsZTP024686 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 10:54:35 -0400 Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p6QEsUxZ024585 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 10:54:30 -0400 Received: from aldc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p6QEs4ZI001177 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 10:54:04 -0400 Received: from dns.maillennium.att.com (mailgw1.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p6QEs1Mb001071 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 10:54:01 -0400 Received: from [135.70.163.218] (vpn-135-70-163-218.vpn.mwst.att.com[135.70.163.218]) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with ESMTP id <20110726145359gw100e4l81e> (Authid: tony); Tue, 26 Jul 2011 14:54:00 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.70.163.218] Message-ID: <4E2ED4EE.9070306@att.com> Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 10:53:34 -0400 From: Tony Hansen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian E Carpenter References: <4E2DE139.5040205@gmail.com> <4E2DE7C0.5080108@gmx.de> <4E2E02A1.7060305@gmail.com> <4E2E10DA.7060608@gmail.com> <4E2E28FB.3070608@gmail.com> <4E2E3F32.3050509@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <4E2E4475.4070208@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4E2E4475.4070208@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: xml2rfc Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Why development version dislikes List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 14:54:12 -0000 On 7/26/2011 12:37 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > On 2011-07-26 16:14, Martin J. Dürst wrote: > > On 2011/07/26 11:39, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >>> It appears that the new code requires ENTITY definitions >>> to be embedded within the DOCTYPE declaration. This has never been >>> the case before. Thus: >>> >>> >> >>> >> 'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml'> >>> >>> ]> >>> >>> I suspect a lot of existing source files would be invalidated by this >>> requirement. > Yes, if it is carefully announced and introduced at a specific date. > I have no trouble with fixing my source files, but I need to be told. > (The diagnostic was quite helpful in that it pointed to exactly > the line that was causing the problem, but I could only isolate the > problem by a line-by-line comparison with Elwyn's future-proof > tutorial example. That's not satisfactory for the entire user > population.) One of the things we need to do before rolling out the new version is to start figuring out what some of those common "errors" are. For those that can be mechanically converted, it might be worth having a tool to help with that. If nothing else, we definitely need to collect a list of the changes that have been found to be required, with before and after examples. To that end, did your code just not have the DOCTYPE declaration before? Or was it there but just not surrounding the ENTITY declarations? Tony Hansen From elwynd@dial.pipex.com Tue Jul 26 08:21:17 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 A188E1F0C39 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 08:21:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 uYzcRJur6K3w for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 08:21:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from b.painless.aaisp.net.uk (b.painless.aaisp.net.uk [IPv6:2001:8b0:0:30::51bb:1e34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 664DC1F0C37 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 08:21:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dhcp-172d.meeting.ietf.org ([130.129.23.45]) by b.painless.aaisp.net.uk with esmtpa (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QljRT-00041E-C0; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 16:21:12 +0100 Message-ID: <4E2EDB5F.9050808@dial.pipex.com> Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 16:21:03 +0100 From: Elwyn Davies User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20081209) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian E Carpenter References: <4E2DE139.5040205@gmail.com> <4E2DE7C0.5080108@gmx.de> <4E2E02A1.7060305@gmail.com> <4E2E10DA.7060608@gmail.com> <4E2E28FB.3070608@gmail.com> <4E2E3F32.3050509@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <4E2E4475.4070208@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4E2E4475.4070208@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: xml2rfc Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Why development version dislikes List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:21:17 -0000 Hi. I just tried out an old draft that I know contains some unusual features. Unfortunately it didn't get as far as checking on these. I get a lot of error messages related to entity references: My imported references are in the form * The error messages are of the form: *ERROR: Unable to validate the XML document: INPUT Line 1406: IDREF attribute target references an unknown ID "RFC3471" The problem is doubtless that there are a number of different forms for these ENTITY definitions! Regards, Elwyn Brian E Carpenter wrote: > On 2011-07-26 16:14, Martin J. Dürst wrote: > >> Hello Brian, >> >> On 2011/07/26 11:39, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> >>> It appears that the new code requires ENTITY definitions >>> to be embedded within the DOCTYPE declaration. This has never been >>> the case before. Thus: >>> >>> >> >>> >> 'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml'> >>> >>> ]> >>> >>> I suspect a lot of existing source files would be invalidated by this >>> requirement. >>> >> Sorry, but that would actually be a good thing. >> > > Yes, if it is carefully announced and introduced at a specific date. > I have no trouble with fixing my source files, but I need to be told. > (The diagnostic was quite helpful in that it pointed to exactly > the line that was causing the problem, but I could only isolate the > problem by a line-by-line comparison with Elwyn's future-proof > tutorial example. That's not satisfactory for the entire user > population.) > > Brian > > > >> Free-standing ENTITY >> declarations are not allowed by XML. Please see: >> >> http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#NT-doctypedecl >> http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#NT-EntityDecl >> >> This slipped through the cracks up to now because the Tcl implementation >> was very ad-hoc. The new implementation uses a parser library, I guess >> (would be crazy if it didn't). >> >> Of all things, we don't want to give the impression that the IETF is >> calling something XML that isn't. >> >> Regards, Martin. >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > xml2rfc mailing list > xml2rfc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xml2rfc > From elwynd@dial.pipex.com Tue Jul 26 08:24:17 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 4A63E11E8131 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 08:24:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 jQw7IWvb3FF2 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 08:24:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from auth.a.painless.aaisp.net.uk (auth.a.painless.aaisp.net.uk [IPv6:2001:8b0:0:30:230:48ff:fe72:d05c]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 227AE11E8120 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 08:24:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dhcp-172d.meeting.ietf.org ([130.129.23.45]) by a.painless.aaisp.net.uk with esmtpa (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QljUU-00014J-ES; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 16:24:15 +0100 Message-ID: <4E2EDC1C.7000501@dial.pipex.com> Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 16:24:12 +0100 From: Elwyn Davies User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20081209) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian E Carpenter References: <4E2DE139.5040205@gmail.com> <4E2DE7C0.5080108@gmx.de> <4E2E02A1.7060305@gmail.com> <4E2E10DA.7060608@gmail.com> <4E2E28FB.3070608@gmail.com> <4E2E3F32.3050509@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <4E2E4475.4070208@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4E2E4475.4070208@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: xml2rfc Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Why development version dislikes List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:24:17 -0000 Hi. Should have said draft is http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-irtf-routing-reqs-11.xml I just tried out an old draft that I know contains some unusual features. Unfortunately it didn't get as far as checking on these. I get a lot of error messages related to entity references: My imported references are in the form * The error messages are of the form: *ERROR: Unable to validate the XML document: INPUT Line 1406: IDREF attribute target references an unknown ID "RFC3471" The problem is doubtless that there are a number of different forms for these ENTITY definitions! Regards, Elwyn Brian E Carpenter wrote: > On 2011-07-26 16:14, Martin J. Dürst wrote: > >> Hello Brian, >> >> On 2011/07/26 11:39, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> >>> It appears that the new code requires ENTITY definitions >>> to be embedded within the DOCTYPE declaration. This has never been >>> the case before. Thus: >>> >>> >> >>> >> 'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml'> >>> >>> ]> >>> >>> I suspect a lot of existing source files would be invalidated by this >>> requirement. >>> >> Sorry, but that would actually be a good thing. >> > > Yes, if it is carefully announced and introduced at a specific date. > I have no trouble with fixing my source files, but I need to be told. > (The diagnostic was quite helpful in that it pointed to exactly > the line that was causing the problem, but I could only isolate the > problem by a line-by-line comparison with Elwyn's future-proof > tutorial example. That's not satisfactory for the entire user > population.) > > Brian > > > >> Free-standing ENTITY >> declarations are not allowed by XML. Please see: >> >> http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#NT-doctypedecl >> http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#NT-EntityDecl >> >> This slipped through the cracks up to now because the Tcl implementation >> was very ad-hoc. The new implementation uses a parser library, I guess >> (would be crazy if it didn't). >> >> Of all things, we don't want to give the impression that the IETF is >> calling something XML that isn't. >> >> Regards, Martin. >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > xml2rfc mailing list > xml2rfc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xml2rfc > From elwynd@dial.pipex.com Tue Jul 26 10:14:20 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 976A021F8B30 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 10:14:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 u0B7nLMuyHO9 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 10:14:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from b.painless.aaisp.net.uk (b.painless.aaisp.net.uk [IPv6:2001:8b0:0:30::51bb:1e34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7492821F8A57 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 10:14:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dhcp-172d.meeting.ietf.org ([130.129.23.45]) by b.painless.aaisp.net.uk with esmtpa (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QllCy-0001TK-VA; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 18:14:17 +0100 Message-ID: <4E2EF5E7.8010502@dial.pipex.com> Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 18:14:15 +0100 From: Elwyn Davies User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20081209) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian Rosen References: <4E2DE139.5040205@gmail.com> <4E2DE7C0.5080108@gmx.de> <4E2E02A1.7060305@gmail.com> <4E2E10DA.7060608@gmail.com> <4E2E28FB.3070608@gmail.com> <4E2E3F32.3050509@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <4E2E4475.4070208@gmail.com> <4E2EDC1C.7000501@dial.pipex.com> <379B976F-2426-4472-AFA5-9B4BEF4E17CB@brianrosen.net> In-Reply-To: <379B976F-2426-4472-AFA5-9B4BEF4E17CB@brianrosen.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: xml2rfc Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Why development version dislikes List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 17:14:20 -0000 Yes. I checked that.. /E Brian Rosen wrote: > Are your ENTITYs in DOCTYPE: > > 'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml'> > > ]> > > That is what Brian Carpenter found was needed. > > Brian > > On Jul 26, 2011, at 11:24 AM, Elwyn Davies wrote: > > >> Hi. >> >> Should have said draft is http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-irtf-routing-reqs-11.xml >> >> I just tried out an old draft that I know contains some unusual features. >> >> Unfortunately it didn't get as far as checking on these. >> >> I get a lot of error messages related to entity references: >> My imported references are in the form >> >> * >> >> The error messages are of the form: >> *ERROR: Unable to validate the XML document: INPUT >> Line 1406: IDREF attribute target references an unknown ID "RFC3471" >> >> The problem is doubtless that there are a number of different forms for these ENTITY definitions! >> >> Regards, >> Elwyn >> >> >> >> >> Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> >>> On 2011-07-26 16:14, Martin J. Dürst wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Hello Brian, >>>> >>>> On 2011/07/26 11:39, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> It appears that the new code requires ENTITY definitions >>>>> to be embedded within the DOCTYPE declaration. This has never been >>>>> the case before. Thus: >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> 'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml'> >>>>> >>>>> ]> >>>>> >>>>> I suspect a lot of existing source files would be invalidated by this >>>>> requirement. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Sorry, but that would actually be a good thing. >>>> >>> Yes, if it is carefully announced and introduced at a specific date. >>> I have no trouble with fixing my source files, but I need to be told. >>> (The diagnostic was quite helpful in that it pointed to exactly >>> the line that was causing the problem, but I could only isolate the >>> problem by a line-by-line comparison with Elwyn's future-proof >>> tutorial example. That's not satisfactory for the entire user >>> population.) >>> >>> Brian >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> Free-standing ENTITY >>>> declarations are not allowed by XML. Please see: >>>> >>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#NT-doctypedecl >>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#NT-EntityDecl >>>> >>>> This slipped through the cracks up to now because the Tcl implementation >>>> was very ad-hoc. The new implementation uses a parser library, I guess >>>> (would be crazy if it didn't). >>>> >>>> Of all things, we don't want to give the impression that the IETF is >>>> calling something XML that isn't. >>>> >>>> Regards, Martin. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> xml2rfc mailing list >>> xml2rfc@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xml2rfc >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> xml2rfc mailing list >> xml2rfc@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xml2rfc >> > > From julian.reschke@gmx.de Tue Jul 26 11:01:44 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 DECE111E810E for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 11:01:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.399 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.800, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 nGP3eYITWUCg for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 11:01:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 919A111E811B for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 11:01:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 26 Jul 2011 18:01:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (EHLO [130.129.20.227]) [130.129.20.227] by mail.gmx.net (mp036) with SMTP; 26 Jul 2011 20:01:41 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1915285 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19wqhszaIxwcgp/Jc+oQhOmTKkKWT+H1XiFtYOjG8 nzmavrxzqV/3Yp Message-ID: <4E2F0102.6000802@gmx.de> Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 20:01:38 +0200 From: Julian Reschke User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: elwynd@dial.pipex.com References: <4E2DE139.5040205@gmail.com> <4E2DE7C0.5080108@gmx.de> <4E2E02A1.7060305@gmail.com> <4E2E10DA.7060608@gmail.com> <4E2E28FB.3070608@gmail.com> <4E2E3F32.3050509@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <4E2E4475.4070208@gmail.com> <4E2EDC1C.7000501@dial.pipex.com> In-Reply-To: <4E2EDC1C.7000501@dial.pipex.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Cc: xml2rfc Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Why development version dislikes List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 18:01:45 -0000 On 2011-07-26 17:24, Elwyn Davies wrote: > Hi. > > Should have said draft is > http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-irtf-routing-reqs-11.xml > > I just tried out an old draft that I know contains some unusual features. > > Unfortunately it didn't get as far as checking on these. > > I get a lot of error messages related to entity references: > My imported references are in the form > > * "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3471.xml"*> > > The error messages are of the form: > *ERROR: Unable to validate the XML document: INPUT > Line 1406: IDREF attribute target references an unknown ID "RFC3471" > > The problem is doubtless that there are a number of different forms for > these ENTITY definitions! > > Regards, > Elwyn That may be an actual bug; my validators do not see any (serious) problems with that source file. Best regards, Julian From elwynd@dial.pipex.com Tue Jul 26 11:28:01 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 A03BB21F888A for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 11:28:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 NaUoH41WA9Ub for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 11:28:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from b.painless.aaisp.net.uk (b.painless.aaisp.net.uk [IPv6:2001:8b0:0:30::51bb:1e34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACA6721F873D for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 11:28:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dhcp-172d.meeting.ietf.org ([130.129.23.45]) by b.painless.aaisp.net.uk with esmtpa (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QlmMI-0003L1-Gq; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 19:27:59 +0100 Message-ID: <4E2F072B.5030709@dial.pipex.com> Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 19:27:55 +0100 From: Elwyn Davies User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20081209) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Julian Reschke References: <4E2DE139.5040205@gmail.com> <4E2DE7C0.5080108@gmx.de> <4E2E02A1.7060305@gmail.com> <4E2E10DA.7060608@gmail.com> <4E2E28FB.3070608@gmail.com> <4E2E3F32.3050509@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <4E2E4475.4070208@gmail.com> <4E2EDC1C.7000501@dial.pipex.com> <4E2F0102.6000802@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: <4E2F0102.6000802@gmx.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: xml2rfc Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Why development version dislikes List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 18:28:01 -0000 Julian Reschke wrote: > On 2011-07-26 17:24, Elwyn Davies wrote: >> Hi. >> >> Should have said draft is >> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-irtf-routing-reqs-11.xml >> >> I just tried out an old draft that I know contains some unusual >> features. >> >> Unfortunately it didn't get as far as checking on these. >> >> I get a lot of error messages related to entity references: >> My imported references are in the form >> >> *> "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3471.xml"*> >> >> The error messages are of the form: >> *ERROR: Unable to validate the XML document: INPUT >> Line 1406: IDREF attribute target references an unknown ID "RFC3471" >> >> The problem is doubtless that there are a number of different forms for >> these ENTITY definitions! >> >> Regards, >> Elwyn > > That may be an actual bug; my validators do not see any (serious) > problems with that source file. > > Best regards, Julian :-) Well it certainly used to go through earlier versions of xml2rfc! And the RFC Editor was happy with it! The main reason for trying that draft was that it uses a numbered list that spans many sections which is a relatively unusual feature. I know there is already a set of drafts/rfcs as test docs... Do we have a document that provides an (arcane) test of as many features as we think of? Maybe the project plan includes a set of automated regression tests of this kind - if not I think that would be a useful idea. Perhaps I ought to expand my example file that I did when I did the xml2rfc tutorial. Would that be helpful or has it been done already? Regards, Elwyn From julian.reschke@gmx.de Tue Jul 26 11:32:35 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 ADF1221F8A80 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 11:32:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.266 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.266 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.667, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 26dQJUTdwMOy for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 11:32:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 5456D21F8A91 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 11:32:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 26 Jul 2011 18:32:33 -0000 Received: from dhcp-14e3.meeting.ietf.org (EHLO [130.129.20.227]) [130.129.20.227] by mail.gmx.net (mp051) with SMTP; 26 Jul 2011 20:32:33 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1915285 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18R/Awd1LkRAEiZQktD+S0GXfu9u2THXsApjkF3Dz g/BVHHV2fLbEHu Message-ID: <4E2F083D.8090206@gmx.de> Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 20:32:29 +0200 From: Julian Reschke User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: elwynd@dial.pipex.com References: <4E2DE139.5040205@gmail.com> <4E2DE7C0.5080108@gmx.de> <4E2E02A1.7060305@gmail.com> <4E2E10DA.7060608@gmail.com> <4E2E28FB.3070608@gmail.com> <4E2E3F32.3050509@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <4E2E4475.4070208@gmail.com> <4E2EDC1C.7000501@dial.pipex.com> <4E2F0102.6000802@gmx.de> <4E2F072B.5030709@dial.pipex.com> In-Reply-To: <4E2F072B.5030709@dial.pipex.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Cc: xml2rfc Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Why development version dislikes List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 18:32:35 -0000 On 2011-07-26 20:27, Elwyn Davies wrote: > ... > I know there is already a set of drafts/rfcs as test docs... Do we have > a document that provides an (arcane) test of as many features as we > think of? > ... I have: > ... Best regards, Julian From henrik@levkowetz.com Tue Jul 26 15:00:52 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 ABB6321F8686 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:00:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 6QjvSi+MNRKR for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:00:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shiraz.levkowetz.com (unknown [IPv6:2a01:3f0:1:2:2b0:d0ff:feb0:7e87]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAF7521F8661 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:00:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45185 helo=dhcp-2501.meeting.ietf.org) by shiraz.levkowetz.com with esmtp (Exim 4.75) (envelope-from ) id 1QlpgE-0001uX-Jr; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 00:00:46 +0200 Message-ID: <4E2F390D.3070301@levkowetz.com> Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 18:00:45 -0400 From: Henrik Levkowetz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: xml2rfc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: xml2rfc@ietf.org, henrik-sent@levkowetz.com X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: henrik@levkowetz.com X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on shiraz.levkowetz.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Subject: [xml2rfc] Alternative experimental 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 Jul 2011 22:00:52 -0000 Hi, For those who are in a terrible hurry, and for some reason have XML sources which depend on features in the old experimental version and won't work with either the release version or the new experimental version, randy's server at tools.bogus.com may still be running a copy of the old experimental version, and will probably do so for a little while more. But it's a good idea to move over to the new experimental as soon as it works for you, as I don't expect randy's server to be running the old experimental forever: http://tools.bogus.com/experimental.html Best regards, Henrik From julian.reschke@gmx.de Tue Jul 26 15:14:37 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 8CC2321F89B8 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:14:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.349 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.349 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.750, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 WvC-JiY5KaSB for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:14:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 2F57921F86C3 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:14:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 26 Jul 2011 22:14:34 -0000 Received: from dhcp-14e3.meeting.ietf.org (EHLO [130.129.20.227]) [130.129.20.227] by mail.gmx.net (mp050) with SMTP; 27 Jul 2011 00:14:34 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1915285 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/SUnkbMSDSDhN4/2TzZTjM3xKcG3W3OuAuZoOyxq QecNsgR6gBx9ht Message-ID: <4E2F3C45.3090100@gmx.de> Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 00:14:29 +0200 From: Julian Reschke User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Henrik Levkowetz References: <4E2F390D.3070301@levkowetz.com> In-Reply-To: <4E2F390D.3070301@levkowetz.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Cc: xml2rfc Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Alternative experimental 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 Jul 2011 22:14:37 -0000 On 2011-07-27 00:00, Henrik Levkowetz wrote: > Hi, > > For those who are in a terrible hurry, and for some reason have XML sources > which depend on features in the old experimental version and won't work > with > either the release version or the new experimental version, randy's server > at tools.bogus.com may still be running a copy of the old experimental > version, > and will probably do so for a little while more. But it's a good idea to > move > over to the new experimental as soon as it works for you, as I don't expect > randy's server to be running the old experimental forever: > > http://tools.bogus.com/experimental.html > > Best regards, > > Henrik My understanding is there hasn't been an "experimental" version in service for quite some time. What's online is essentially the tip of the trunk. Best regards, Julian From henrik@levkowetz.com Tue Jul 26 15:32:10 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 18E155E8011 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:32:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, 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 Me6aMqmy7iYk for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:32:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from merlot.tools.ietf.org (unknown [IPv6:2a01:3f0:0:31:214:22ff:fe21:bb]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 363E95E800F for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:32:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [2001:df8:0:32:e2f8:47ff:fe1b:d17a] (port=60487 helo=dhcp-2501.meeting.ietf.org) by merlot.tools.ietf.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.75) (envelope-from ) id 1QlqAN-0008Dk-Qx; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 00:31:56 +0200 Message-ID: <4E2F405A.4060408@levkowetz.com> Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 18:31:54 -0400 From: Henrik Levkowetz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Julian Reschke References: <4E2F390D.3070301@levkowetz.com> <4E2F3C45.3090100@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: <4E2F3C45.3090100@gmx.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 2001:df8:0:32:e2f8:47ff:fe1b:d17a X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: julian.reschke@gmx.de, xml2rfc@ietf.org, henrik-sent@levkowetz.com X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: henrik@levkowetz.com X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 22 Mar 2010 06:51:10 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on merlot.tools.ietf.org) Cc: xml2rfc Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Alternative experimental 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 Jul 2011 22:32:10 -0000 Hi Julian, On 2011-07-26 18:14 Julian Reschke said the following: > On 2011-07-27 00:00, Henrik Levkowetz wrote: >> Hi, >> >> For those who are in a terrible hurry, and for some reason have XML sources >> which depend on features in the old experimental version and won't work >> with >> either the release version or the new experimental version, randy's server >> at tools.bogus.com may still be running a copy of the old experimental >> version, >> and will probably do so for a little while more. But it's a good idea to >> move >> over to the new experimental as soon as it works for you, as I don't expect >> randy's server to be running the old experimental forever: >> >> http://tools.bogus.com/experimental.html >> >> Best regards, >> >> Henrik > > My understanding is there hasn't been an "experimental" version in > service for quite some time. What's online is essentially the tip of the > trunk. I don't mind calling it whatever; just as long as it lets people get their draft out if it's urgent right now, with a bit more time to convert to the new rewrite which will eventually become the standard. Best regards, Henrik From brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com Tue Jul 26 15:33:44 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 BC3135E800F for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:33:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.602 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.003, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, 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 gG9Wh40ZAjSy for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:33:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CBA55E8005 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:33:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by iye7 with SMTP id 7so1227853iye.31 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:33:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=/N0G/IRi1kGC2jgAdx4WKZXdUroefzl4St2O83vdC9Y=; b=UTZv2pASmTjVgGssMwXkZqfvrnTRHRM+mnu8GXIKLcfRfPInRjRIGTMJMKmGZZ35YC mJTx0py5wngGxla9+nIig4FAoX92WiDKV5am8oScFtBSqSR+GoYsWNItDLXXWEotVMuG V+N27Zh8ZHekAMJ25abSvdJwvdCTS3A+ZPNtY= Received: by 10.42.152.74 with SMTP id h10mr6577icw.484.1311719623529; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:33:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [130.216.38.124] (stf-brian.sfac.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.38.124]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id s9sm1219332icz.16.2011.07.26.15.33.40 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:33:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4E2F40C2.1030501@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 10:33:38 +1200 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Nico Williams References: <4E2DE139.5040205@gmail.com> <4E2DE7C0.5080108@gmx.de> <4E2E02A1.7060305@gmail.com> <4E2E10DA.7060608@gmail.com> <4E2E2E24.5090508@gmail.com> <4E2E3FFE.1040809@it.aoyama.ac.jp> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: xml2rfc Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Development version is picky about . 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 Jul 2011 22:33:44 -0000 On 2011-07-26 17:24, Nico Williams wrote: > On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 11:18 PM, "Martin J. D=C3=BCrst" > wrote: >> On 2011/07/26 12:01, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >>> It appears that the new code requires to be embedded >>> in, even in "fast" checking mode. The old version tolerates >>> bare (in "fast" mode). >>> >>> That's another significant compatibility problem for older source fil= es. >> It's not only a problem for older files, it's also a problem for peopl= e who >> don't know xml2rfc specifics and are used to other, more straightforwa= rd >> markup. I very much encourage the team to evolve the DTD so that there= is no >> need anymore for nesting. >> (I can give help with the DTD if necessary.) >=20 > I've been doing this right for years, so I won't be affected, but, > hear hear! It's quite annoying to have to embed list tags in t tags. In some cases it's worse than annoying, because you have to resort to an ugly construct to get "paragraph" breaks in numbered lists containing embedded lists. Yes please somebody fix this in the DTD! Brian From brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com Tue Jul 26 15:40:16 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 CE8A211E810F for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:40:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.602 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.003, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, 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 apo1tz9HgSzU for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:40:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3529F11E80BD for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:40:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by iye7 with SMTP id 7so1233963iye.31 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:40:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=QFwh1tesbfpXRb+EidfgX7TGYdQUr2XPAmeLhpmNDnk=; b=TDTW8fHan2mYzxEGWAZdxcw0kBAK8JcuLCtZo4fgwkzAB25XIBdbYA5PXCrPxEY3hN oO+fHrD/hH3ZCYWHdMaIJ1aeAPHIcOgdoq/ZWMGieFYowp2GDPReJdktUokkcPT4bkdB c1Jcn5rF4YwkthrUijPKOGQgq/53OmdHQ/QDg= Received: by 10.43.50.2 with SMTP id vc2mr10122icb.24.1311720014848; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:40:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [130.216.38.124] (stf-brian.sfac.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.38.124]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d5sm616932ibi.28.2011.07.26.15.40.13 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:40:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4E2F4249.1020104@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 10:40:09 +1200 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tony Hansen References: <4E2DE139.5040205@gmail.com> <4E2DE7C0.5080108@gmx.de> <4E2E02A1.7060305@gmail.com> <4E2E10DA.7060608@gmail.com> <4E2E28FB.3070608@gmail.com> <4E2E3F32.3050509@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <4E2E4475.4070208@gmail.com> <4E2ED4EE.9070306@att.com> In-Reply-To: <4E2ED4EE.9070306@att.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: xml2rfc Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Why development version dislikes List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 22:40:16 -0000 On 2011-07-27 02:53, Tony Hansen wrote: ... > To that end, did your code just not have the DOCTYPE declaration before? > Or was it there but just not surrounding the ENTITY declarations? The second case - the ENTITY declarations stood alone, below the DOCTYPE. To someone whose brain is not wired with XML, there's no logic in requiring the embedding (and I've been using SGML in one form or another for about 25 years, so this isn't exactly my first run-in with picky syntax). And where did I copy it from? I can't say; probably from somebody else's xm2rfc source around 2006. I agree that logging these issues is the first step towards dealing with them when the new version is considered ready for release. Brian From tony@att.com Tue Jul 26 15:40:17 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 D95C211E811D for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:40:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.657 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.657 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.942, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 XdgLhBYBVA0V for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:40:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail119.messagelabs.com (mail119.messagelabs.com [216.82.241.195]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F32C111E80BD for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:40:16 -0700 (PDT) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: tony@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-5.tower-119.messagelabs.com!1311720015!31054814!1 X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.17; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.145] Received: (qmail 24966 invoked from network); 26 Jul 2011 22:40:16 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp6.sbc.com (HELO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.145) by server-5.tower-119.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 26 Jul 2011 22:40:16 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p6QMefPE032101 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 18:40:41 -0400 Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p6QMecZS032068 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 18:40:39 -0400 Received: from aldc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p6QMeC8Y002774 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 18:40:13 -0400 Received: from mailgw1.maillennium.att.com (mailgw1.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p6QMe7Rx002620 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 18:40:10 -0400 Received: from [135.70.20.58] (vpn-135-70-20-58.vpn.west.att.com[135.70.20.58]) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with ESMTP id <20110726224006gw100e4lb1e> (Authid: tony); Tue, 26 Jul 2011 22:40:07 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.70.20.58] Message-ID: <4E2F4242.3060203@att.com> Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 18:40:02 -0400 From: Tony Hansen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Henrik Levkowetz References: <4E2F390D.3070301@levkowetz.com> In-Reply-To: <4E2F390D.3070301@levkowetz.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: xml2rfc Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Alternative experimental 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 Jul 2011 22:40:18 -0000 For the past year, xml.resource.org/experimental.html has done an automatic redirect to xml.resource.org/index.html. That is, there was *no* "old experimental" version of xml2rfc -- it was simply the current live version. If you want to continue to use what you got prior to this past weekend, just use the link xml.resource.org. But if you want to use the new experimental stuff, feel free to use what's on xml.resource.org/experimental.html. I added a big red note to experimental.html today explaining some of this. Tony Hansen On 7/26/2011 6:00 PM, Henrik Levkowetz wrote: > Hi, > > For those who are in a terrible hurry, and for some reason have XML > sources > which depend on features in the old experimental version and won't > work with > either the release version or the new experimental version, randy's > server > at tools.bogus.com may still be running a copy of the old experimental > version, > and will probably do so for a little while more. But it's a good idea > to move > over to the new experimental as soon as it works for you, as I don't > expect > randy's server to be running the old experimental forever: > > http://tools.bogus.com/experimental.html > > Best regards, > > Henrik From henrik@levkowetz.com Tue Jul 26 15:58:16 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 9BC1721F8743 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:58:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, 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 3VXIENunhIRi for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:58:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from merlot.tools.ietf.org (unknown [IPv6:2a01:3f0:0:31:214:22ff:fe21:bb]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFDA221F86DD for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:58:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [2001:df8:0:32:e2f8:47ff:fe1b:d17a] (port=60714 helo=dhcp-2501.meeting.ietf.org) by merlot.tools.ietf.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.75) (envelope-from ) id 1QlqZb-0004Qt-AD; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 00:58:00 +0200 Message-ID: <4E2F4675.2050009@levkowetz.com> Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 18:57:57 -0400 From: Henrik Levkowetz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tony Hansen References: <4E2F390D.3070301@levkowetz.com> <4E2F4242.3060203@att.com> In-Reply-To: <4E2F4242.3060203@att.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 2001:df8:0:32:e2f8:47ff:fe1b:d17a X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: tony@att.com, xml2rfc@ietf.org, henrik-sent@levkowetz.com X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: henrik@levkowetz.com X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 22 Mar 2010 06:51:10 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on merlot.tools.ietf.org) Cc: xml2rfc Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Alternative experimental 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 Jul 2011 22:58:16 -0000 Hi Tony, On 2011-07-26 18:40 Tony Hansen said the following: > For the past year, xml.resource.org/experimental.html has done an > automatic redirect to xml.resource.org/index.html. Oops. Please excuse my useless advice, in this case :-) Best regards, Henrik > That is, there was *no* "old experimental" version of xml2rfc -- it was > simply the current live version. > > If you want to continue to use what you got prior to this past weekend, > just use the link xml.resource.org. But if you want to use the new > experimental stuff, feel free to use what's on > xml.resource.org/experimental.html. > > I added a big red note to experimental.html today explaining some of this. > > Tony Hansen > > On 7/26/2011 6:00 PM, Henrik Levkowetz wrote: >> Hi, >> >> For those who are in a terrible hurry, and for some reason have XML >> sources >> which depend on features in the old experimental version and won't >> work with >> either the release version or the new experimental version, randy's >> server >> at tools.bogus.com may still be running a copy of the old experimental >> version, >> and will probably do so for a little while more. But it's a good idea >> to move >> over to the new experimental as soon as it works for you, as I don't >> expect >> randy's server to be running the old experimental forever: >> >> http://tools.bogus.com/experimental.html >> >> Best regards, >> >> Henrik > From duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp Tue Jul 26 19:23:11 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 F202921F86DC for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 19:23:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -99.864 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.864 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.074, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 g51nAZSUKPVy for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 19:23:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scintmta02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scintmta02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp [133.2.253.34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E432321F86DD for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 19:23:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scmse02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp ([133.2.253.231]) by scintmta02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (secret/secret) with SMTP id p6R2N4Ko011598 for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 11:23:04 +0900 Received: from (unknown [133.2.206.133]) by scmse02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp with smtp id 772a_62c6_5b8bee98_b7f7_11e0_b5b1_001d096c5782; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 11:23:04 +0900 Received: from [IPv6:::1] ([133.2.210.5]:44758) by itmail.it.aoyama.ac.jp with [XMail 1.22 ESMTP Server] id for from ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 11:23:01 +0900 Message-ID: <4E2F7651.1050103@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 11:22:09 +0900 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Martin_J=2E_D=FCrst=22?= Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100722 Eudora/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: elwynd@dial.pipex.com References: <4E2DE139.5040205@gmail.com> <4E2DE7C0.5080108@gmx.de> <4E2E02A1.7060305@gmail.com> <4E2E10DA.7060608@gmail.com> <4E2E28FB.3070608@gmail.com> <4E2E3F32.3050509@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <4E2E4475.4070208@gmail.com> <4E2EDC1C.7000501@dial.pipex.com> <4E2F0102.6000802@gmx.de> <4E2F072B.5030709@dial.pipex.com> In-Reply-To: <4E2F072B.5030709@dial.pipex.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: xml2rfc Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Why development version dislikes List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 02:23:12 -0000 Hello Elwyn, On 2011/07/27 3:27, Elwyn Davies wrote: > Julian Reschke wrote: >> On 2011-07-26 17:24, Elwyn Davies wrote: >>> Hi. >>> >>> Should have said draft is >>> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-irtf-routing-reqs-11.xml I'm a bit confused here. I have looked at this, and it only contains , no ENTITY declarations. Can you check again? Regards, Martin. >>> I just tried out an old draft that I know contains some unusual >>> features. >>> >>> Unfortunately it didn't get as far as checking on these. >>> >>> I get a lot of error messages related to entity references: >>> My imported references are in the form >>> >>> *>> "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3471.xml"*> >>> >>> The error messages are of the form: >>> *ERROR: Unable to validate the XML document: INPUT >>> Line 1406: IDREF attribute target references an unknown ID "RFC3471" >>> >>> The problem is doubtless that there are a number of different forms for >>> these ENTITY definitions! >>> >>> Regards, >>> Elwyn >> >> That may be an actual bug; my validators do not see any (serious) >> problems with that source file. >> >> Best regards, Julian > :-) > Well it certainly used to go through earlier versions of xml2rfc! And > the RFC Editor was happy with it! > > The main reason for trying that draft was that it uses a numbered list > that spans many sections which is a relatively unusual feature. > > I know there is already a set of drafts/rfcs as test docs... Do we have > a document that provides an (arcane) test of as many features as we > think of? > > Maybe the project plan includes a set of automated regression tests of > this kind - if not I think that would be a useful idea. Perhaps I ought > to expand my example file that I did when I did the xml2rfc tutorial. > Would that be helpful or has it been done already? > > Regards, > Elwyn > _______________________________________________ > xml2rfc mailing list > xml2rfc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xml2rfc > From brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com Tue Jul 26 21:07:49 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 F13D15E801F for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 21:07:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.602 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.003, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, 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 N2BXTyt3pLgn for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 21:07:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pz0-f53.google.com (mail-pz0-f53.google.com [209.85.210.53]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 556D45E801C for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 21:07:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pzk6 with SMTP id 6so1867072pzk.26 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 21:07:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=BNZBi008qmIaBqXmr/9tpD1J80T71kWMmdTbdUIbPzs=; b=U7pZjfrGHwg7hIwJuh8lfcrTHETXn+3Rq1UNB7/2oBk6Yvb54VtL9nnQFan2t+CAVM tzhHSNdUK0WLpL5hvFsZZomTxFXojdEdKzjC0EjxBHEufJQHTZyjHgS0CDvHkUPKCipH AcDWcl6m36mTTGAa8uRBsu8sY69fNjsWQ2uNU= Received: by 10.68.58.231 with SMTP id u7mr7792000pbq.258.1311739667947; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 21:07:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [130.216.38.124] (stf-brian.sfac.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.38.124]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d1sm1245587pbj.56.2011.07.26.21.07.46 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 26 Jul 2011 21:07:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4E2F8F05.8080606@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 16:07:33 +1200 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: xml2rfc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [xml2rfc] xml2rfc (experimental) looping 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: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 04:07:49 -0000 Hi, The draft I've been working on today works OK with the production tool in Fast or Strict mode, and works with the development tool (web service) when I select HTML, Web/PDF or expanded XML output. So there are no XML errors, apparently. But it appears to loop when I select any other output format. At least in the case of Plaintext, it finally says: Gateway Time-out The gateway did not receive a timely response from the upstream server or application. Apache/2.2.19 (Debian) Server at xml.resource.org Port 80 Would somebody like my source file? -- Regards Brian Carpenter From elwynd@dial.pipex.com Tue Jul 26 21:21:27 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 15B6E11E80BB for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 21:21:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 wEdl8gUkQ0Ie for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 21:21:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from auth.a.painless.aaisp.net.uk (auth.a.painless.aaisp.net.uk [IPv6:2001:8b0:0:30:230:48ff:fe72:d05c]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3FCA11E8079 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 21:21:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from qubcpq14-1176054427.sdsl.bell.ca ([70.25.42.155] helo=[192.168.2.111]) by a.painless.aaisp.net.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QlvcO-0007bp-5G; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 05:21:12 +0100 From: elwynd@dial.pipex.com To: "Martin J. =?UTF-8?B?RMO8cnN0?=" Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 00:20:28 -0400 Message-ID: X-Mailer: EPOC Email Version 2.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Language: i-default Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: xml2rfc Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Why development version dislikes List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 04:21:27 -0000 - original message - Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Why development version dislikes Date: 27/07/2011 2:23 am Hello Elwyn, On 2011/07/27 3:27, Elwyn Davies wrote: > Julian Reschke wrote: >> On 2011-07-26 17:24, Elwyn Davies wrote: >>> Hi. >>> >>> Should have said draft is >>> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-irtf-routing-reqs-11.xml I'm a bit confused here. I have looked at this, and it only contains , no ENTITY declarations. Can you = check again? Regards, Martin. Hi, Marti. I just reloaded it and it does indeed show 3 x PUBLIC and 10 x SYSTEM = entities. They are in the page sourc/e if displayed directly with Firefox = or if saving link. regards, Elwyn. >>> I just tried out an old draft that I know contains some unusual >>> features. >>> >>> Unfortunately it didn't get as far as checking on these. >>> >>> I get a lot of error messages related to entity references: >>> My imported references are in the form >>> >>> *>> = "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3471.xml"*> >>> >>> The error messages are of the form: >>> *ERROR: Unable to validate the XML document: INPUT >>> Line 1406: IDREF attribute target references an unknown ID = "RFC3471" >>> >>> The problem is doubtless that there are a number of different forms = for >>> these ENTITY definitions! >>> >>> Regards, >>> Elwyn >> >> That may be an actual bug; my validators do not see any (serious) >> problems with that source file. >> >> Best regards, Julian > :-) > Well it certainly used to go through earlier versions of xml2rfc! = And > the RFC Editor was happy with it! > > The main reason for trying that draft was that it uses a numbered = list > that spans many sections which is a relatively unusual feature. > > I know there is already a set of drafts/rfcs as test docs... Do we = have > a document that provides an (arcane) test of as many features as we > think of? > > Maybe the project plan includes a set of automated regression tests = of > this kind - if not I think that would be a useful idea. Perhaps I = ought > to expand my example file that I did when I did the xml2rfc = tutorial. > Would that be helpful or has it been done already? > > Regards, > Elwyn > _______________________________________________ > xml2rfc mailing list > xml2rfc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xml2rfc > From elwynd@dial.pipex.com Wed Jul 27 06:40:50 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 2B13C21F85B9 for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 06:40:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 trzk-djVUdEy for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 06:40:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from b.painless.aaisp.net.uk (b.painless.aaisp.net.uk [IPv6:2001:8b0:0:30::51bb:1e34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B37321F8593 for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 06:40:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dhcp-172d.meeting.ietf.org ([130.129.23.45]) by b.painless.aaisp.net.uk with esmtpa (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Qm4Lu-000723-MV; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 14:40:47 +0100 Message-ID: <4E30155A.6010800@dial.pipex.com> Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 14:40:42 +0100 From: Elwyn Davies User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20081209) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian E Carpenter References: <4E2F8F05.8080606@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4E2F8F05.8080606@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: xml2rfc Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] xml2rfc (experimental) looping X-BeenThere: xml2rfc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: elwynd@dial.pipex.com List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 13:40:50 -0000 Hi. It looks as if this is a more generic problem. The problems I reported yesterday with http://tools.ietf.org/tools/templates/template-edu-xml2rfc.xml give exactly these symptoms. I retried with a different output format and got a different error (reported separately). Regards, Elwyn Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Hi, > > The draft I've been working on today works OK with the production > tool in Fast or Strict mode, and works with the development tool > (web service) when I select HTML, Web/PDF or expanded XML output. > So there are no XML errors, apparently. > > But it appears to loop when I select any other output format. > At least in the case of Plaintext, it finally says: > > Gateway Time-out > > The gateway did not receive a timely response from the upstream server or application. > Apache/2.2.19 (Debian) Server at xml.resource.org Port 80 > > Would somebody like my source file? > > From elwynd@dial.pipex.com Wed Jul 27 06:48:28 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 E924E11E8086 for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 06:48:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 dmAVD3YLaPp8 for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 06:48:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from auth.a.painless.aaisp.net.uk (auth.a.painless.aaisp.net.uk [IPv6:2001:8b0:0:30:230:48ff:fe72:d05c]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60E6B11E807A for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 06:48:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dhcp-172d.meeting.ietf.org ([130.129.23.45]) by a.painless.aaisp.net.uk with esmtpa (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Qm4TK-0001kV-Jj for xml2rfc@ietf.org; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 14:48:27 +0100 Message-ID: <4E301726.8030705@dial.pipex.com> Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 14:48:22 +0100 From: Elwyn Davies User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20081209) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: XML2RFC Interest Group Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [xml2rfc] Experimental version - old boilerplate versions not supported X-BeenThere: xml2rfc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: elwynd@dial.pipex.com List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 13:48:29 -0000 Hi. Trying to process http://tools.ietf.org/tools/templates/template-edu-xml2rfc.xml [Exhibits looping behaviour with plaintext output] Selecting HTML output results in the following error: > Unable to Validate File > > WARNING: unable to find a status boilerplate for ipr: noModification3978 Regrettably for full backwards compatibility we will have to support the full plethora of boilerplate options that have ever existed. Bother! I'll go tweak a copy to see if I can get any more useful results. Regards Elwyn From elwynd@dial.pipex.com Wed Jul 27 07:22:18 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 7003F21F88DC for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 07:22:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.400, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2, J_CHICKENPOX_43=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_93=0.6, 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 KxJRjGwA1I3i for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 07:22:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from b.painless.aaisp.net.uk (b.painless.aaisp.net.uk [IPv6:2001:8b0:0:30::51bb:1e34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA47221F84BC for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 07:22:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dhcp-172d.meeting.ietf.org ([130.129.23.45]) by b.painless.aaisp.net.uk with esmtpa (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Qm501-0001YX-BW for xml2rfc@ietf.org; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 15:22:14 +0100 Message-ID: <4E301F13.2050505@dial.pipex.com> Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 15:22:11 +0100 From: Elwyn Davies User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20081209) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: XML2RFC Interest Group Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------090505070708000604080105" Subject: [xml2rfc] Experimental version - bug report - ref identifiers in ref sections with symrefs="no" X-BeenThere: xml2rfc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: elwynd@dial.pipex.com List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 14:22:18 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------090505070708000604080105 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi. Trying to process slightly modified version of http://tools.ietf.org/tools/templates/template-edu-xml2rfc.xml Modified version attached (just the ipr attribute is now nomodification trust200902) [Exhibits looping behaviour with plaintext output] The pi symrefs = "no" is included, but references are identified by symbols rather than sequence numbers in the reference sections, although they are correctly inserted as numbers in the text.. Regards Elwyn --------------090505070708000604080105 Content-Type: text/xml; name="template-edu-xml2rfc_a.xml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="template-edu-xml2rfc_a.xml" ]> Full Title Full Organization name
Espoo FI psavola@funet.fi
Folly Consulting
Soham UK +44 7889 488 335 elwynd@dial.pipex.com
Operations & Management Internet Engineering Task Force This is an abstract abstract. I-Ds and RFCs MUST have an abstract. Remember, don't add references here. So we would just say the 'language' used to write this document is defined in RFC 2629. This "forward" section is an unnumbered section that is not included in the table of contents. It is primarily used for the IESG to make comments about the document. It can also be used for comments about the status of the document and sometimes is used for the RFC2119 requirements language statement. In this example, it is used as a handy place to specify URLs to documents and tools to author RFC-style documents using XML. RFC2629 is the original published document on authoring RFC-style documents in XML (). It is being updated (and called RFC2629(bis) and is . The tool to convert XML documents to RFC-style text (and HTML) files is described in document . Please also remember to check out for issues to note when writing drafts and the automated tools documented at . Remember, you don't need to have any other tools than a 'notepad' or your favorite editor to write xml2rfc drafts. You can use the web interface at for processing. The benefit of using XML editors is mostly catching those missing tags which the processor will warn you about, but you don't need to worry about the editors when getting started. This template is not meant to be a conclusive list of everything, but summarize the often-needed basic features to get one started. The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.
Now you can have a bit lengthier text here. The definition of the XML Data Type Description used to 'describe' an RFC or Internet Draft can be found in a document which we can refer to as RFC 2629. Let's refer to a couple more documents, just for practice: and L2TP. For text generation, these look equivalent, but the latter looks a bit neater in the HTML representation. You might also add a note about the usage of RFC2119 keywords here.. You can cross-reference the sections of the document in a stable manner either by section number - the usual way - or by section title (""): if the organization of the document changes the reference will still be to the correct section. However "sect2" is not a very good 'anchor' name because there is no guarantee that this section will remain as Section 2 for ever. It is best to use some sort of mnemonic for the contents of the section, which also makes it easier to remember the anchor when creating a cross-reference many pages later. A final note about anchors: anchors are XML 'tokens' and must therefore consist only of letters, numbers, underscores, hyphens and periods, starting with either a letter or underscore. Anchors with spaces or other punctuation characters are not allowed.
Technical documents often use lists. There are multiple list styles: 'empty', 'symbols', 'letters', 'numbers', 'hanging', 'format', etc. A more complicated list structure can be found in . First bullet Second bullet You can write text here as well - the difference, as compared with putting it in the next <t> element, is that there will not be a blank line between the last list item and this text if the processing instructions compact and subcompact are both set to "yes". Otherwise list items and the text before and after will be separated by blank lines. One can draw fancy diagrams as well; remember to ensure that they don't exceed 69 chars/line until v1.31 comes along. v1.31 should give you the ability to start figures at the left margin getting figures up to 72 characters wide. Setting the alignment for the whole figure to "center" instead of the default "left" causes all the components to be centred unless it is overridden just for the "artwork", as it is here.
Figures can have some text before the artwork should it be needed. Note that figures should NOT be inside <t> elements. Originally they were allowed to be but you will now get a warning that this is deprecated, and the figure should be a 'child' of the section element. Figures can also have text after the artwork and before the caption (if any). This figure has an anchor. This means that the figure will get a caption...
Note that including a CDATA means you don't need to escape most special characters you might otherwise have to. Figures may also have a title attribute but it won't be displayed unless there is also an anchor, and it will be somewhat disconcerting for readers if some figures have numbers and others don't..
There can be a lot of subsections (and sub-subsections). By default 3 levels of nesting show in table of contents but that can be adjusted with the value of the "tocdepth" processing instruction.
Another item that you might need is a table. The XML for tables is very similar to that for figures: Tables use ttcol to define column headers and widths. Every cell then has a "c" element for its content. ttcol #1 ttcol #2 c #1 c #2 c #3 c #4 c #5 c #6 which is a very simple example.
One useful style of lists uses 'hanging labels' where the list item is indented by the amount of the hangIndent with the hanging label displayed to the left of the first line of the item. This example shows how <vspace> can be used to deal with the odd label longer than the indent you really want to use (This is only really relevant to text mode output because the labels are always on separate lines in HTML output): With a label shorter than the hangIndent there is white space after the label and before the item text starts although it starts on the same line - clearly separating the label from the column of items. With a label longer than the hangIndent the label runs on into the text item and the separation is lost. Inserting a <vspace /> at the start of the item forces the new item to start on a new line emphasizing the separation again. List items in xml2rfc are made up of one <t> element. In some cases it would be nice to have more than one paragraph in a list item. This can be achieved with <vspace> also: First, a short item that needs only one paragraph. Second, a longer list item. We have more to say, and we want a separate paragraph. And here we can have it, and go on to our heart's content. If you just want an indented paragraph (say for a quotation) use the "empty" style: The quick, brown fox jumped over the lazy dog and lived to fool many another hunter in the great wood in the west.
Sometimes it is useful to be able to number items continuously although they are in separate <list> elements, maybe in separate sections. This can be achieved using the "format" style and a "counter" variable. First list with (say) requirements items: Requirement #1 Requirement #2 Requirement #3 It is wise to specify the indent explicitly so that all the items line up nicely. Otherwise the indent in each list is determined by the maximum length of the labels in that list, even if later lists have longer labels. A little later there is a second list with requirements items: Requirement #4 Requirement #5 Requirement #6 before this section finishes.
But in the next section the list of requirements continues: Third list with requirements items: Requirement #7 Requirement #8 Requirement #9 Requirement #10 And finally that is all about the requirements.
The artwork element from RFC 2629 supports an optional type attribute. While most possible values are just ignored, including the special case where the attribute is unspecified or just empty, some values are recognized. In particular, type='abnf' can be used if the artwork contains an Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF) syntax specification . As a special extension in its behavior, xml2rfc will attempt to validate the syntax and colorize the HTML output of ABNF, since it is so widely used in RFCs. It does this colorizing by relying on the full parsing it does right before, not on a quick and partial (e.g., line-by-line) pattern-based hack. ABNF is the only artwork type to benefit from this kind of internal support at this time. If the strict rfc-PI directive is activated, invalid ABNF content will cause xml2rfc to abort with an error message. Omitting the type attribute altogether is the obvious way to avoid having this validation and colorizing performed.
For example (to be viewed in HTML): " ; bracketed string of SP and VCHAR without angles ; prose description, to be used as last resort ]]> This is from the original RFC on ABNF , with its minor mistakes in manually folded comment lines purposely left intact, for illustration. Since the result is still valid ABNF (but incorrect with respect to what was intended), this showcases how colorizing might give a human author (or editor or reader) a better chance to spot the three mistakes (and correct them, e.g., with extra semicolons, as has been done in a more recent version  of the ABNF specification). Note that it is the white space characters at the beginning of the subsequent lines (including the commented ones) that conspire to extend the reach of those rules across several lines.
The most common form of xml2rfc parsing errors are those where a closing tag has been expected to be present before a new kind of tag is specified. In the example below, Introduction section's last paragraph was missing the closing t-element. The rest of the error messages can be rather easily understood as well by reading it carefully and examining the context. The reason is typically a missing tag somewhere.
=======8<======== ]]>
void main(int argc, char *argv[]) { int i; printf("program arguments are:\n"); for (i = 0; i < argc; i++) { printf("%d: \"%s\"\n", i, argv[i]); } exit(0); } /* main */ /* end of file */ ]]>
Remember, it's important to acknowledge people who have contributed to the work. This template was extended from an initial version written by Pekka Savola and contributed by him to the xml2rfc project.
This memo includes no request to IANA. (It's good - indeed pretty much mandatory now - to have an explicit note because otherwise IANA wastes cycles trying to figure out if something is needed..)
Remember to consider security from the start.. and all drafts are required to have a security considerations section before they will pass the IESG.
RFC2661 Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels Harvard University
1350 Mass. Ave. Cambridge MA 02138 - +1 617 495 3864 sob@harvard.edu
General keyword In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. Authors who follow these guidelines should incorporate this phrase near the beginning of their document: The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119. Note that the force of these words is modified by the requirement level of the document in which they are used. &RFC2629; Ultimate Plan for Taking Over the World Mad Dominators, Inc. &RFC4234; &RFC2234;
You can add appendices just as regular sections, the only difference is that they go within the "back" element, and not within the "middle" element. And they follow the "reference" elements.
--------------090505070708000604080105-- From julian.reschke@gmx.de Wed Jul 27 07:23:52 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 A9E6B11E80BD for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 07:23:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.456 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.456 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.857, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 wJDe41nB4j6L for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 07:23:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 9676811E8099 for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 07:23:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 27 Jul 2011 14:23:46 -0000 Received: from dhcp-14e3.meeting.ietf.org (EHLO [130.129.20.227]) [130.129.20.227] by mail.gmx.net (mp004) with SMTP; 27 Jul 2011 16:23:46 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1915285 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/MnOoDeRvMoPLnYMAeYqJOL7cYyNMOxDFA2q3IVx 6+t1y1H62ziC0s Message-ID: <4E301F6F.3060209@gmx.de> Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 16:23:43 +0200 From: Julian Reschke User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: elwynd@dial.pipex.com References: <4E301726.8030705@dial.pipex.com> In-Reply-To: <4E301726.8030705@dial.pipex.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Cc: XML2RFC Interest Group Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Experimental version - old boilerplate versions not supported 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: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 14:23:52 -0000 On 2011-07-27 15:48, Elwyn Davies wrote: > Hi. > > Trying to process > http://tools.ietf.org/tools/templates/template-edu-xml2rfc.xml > > [Exhibits looping behaviour with plaintext output] > > Selecting HTML output results in the following error: >> Unable to Validate File >> >> WARNING: unable to find a status boilerplate for ipr: noModification3978 > Regrettably for full backwards compatibility we will have to support the > full plethora of boilerplate options that have ever existed. Bother! > ... Not good. My experience is that handling the boilerplates can not be fully parametrized; there are just too many special cases and dependencies on content. Best regards, Julian From elwynd@dial.pipex.com Wed Jul 27 07:29:27 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 05B1311E80BD for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 07:29:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.049 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.049 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.350, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2, J_CHICKENPOX_43=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_93=0.6, 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 HggpbaAo3SrL for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 07:29:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from auth.a.painless.aaisp.net.uk (auth.a.painless.aaisp.net.uk [IPv6:2001:8b0:0:30:230:48ff:fe72:d05c]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0997811E80CD for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 07:29:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dhcp-172d.meeting.ietf.org ([130.129.23.45]) by a.painless.aaisp.net.uk with esmtpa (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Qm56u-0006xe-8p for xml2rfc@ietf.org; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 15:29:21 +0100 Message-ID: <4E3020BE.8000604@dial.pipex.com> Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 15:29:18 +0100 From: Elwyn Davies User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20081209) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: XML2RFC Interest Group Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------050601040806090500000205" Subject: [xml2rfc] CURRENT version - bug report - iprextract attribute incorrectly rejected X-BeenThere: xml2rfc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: elwynd@dial.pipex.com List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 14:29:27 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------050601040806090500000205 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi. Trying to process slightly modified version of http://tools.ietf.org/tools/templates/template-edu-xml2rfc.xml Modified version attached (just the ipr attribute is now nomodification trust200902) The following error message is given: > Unable to Validate File > > xml2rfc: error: xml2rfc: error: iprExtract attribute not compatible with ipr noModificationTrust200902 around input line 99 in "/var/tmp/CGItemp55914.xml" > > Context (format: "file_basename:line_in_file:#elem_num:"): > CGItemp55914.xml:55:#1: I believe this is not correct behaviour, but I may be confused. However the new experiemntal version accepts this situation (I was testing the versions for comparison). So one is certainly wrong! Regards Elwyn --------------050601040806090500000205 Content-Type: text/xml; name="template-edu-xml2rfc_a.xml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="template-edu-xml2rfc_a.xml" ]> Full Title Full Organization name
Espoo FI psavola@funet.fi
Folly Consulting
Soham UK +44 7889 488 335 elwynd@dial.pipex.com
Operations & Management Internet Engineering Task Force This is an abstract abstract. I-Ds and RFCs MUST have an abstract. Remember, don't add references here. So we would just say the 'language' used to write this document is defined in RFC 2629. This "forward" section is an unnumbered section that is not included in the table of contents. It is primarily used for the IESG to make comments about the document. It can also be used for comments about the status of the document and sometimes is used for the RFC2119 requirements language statement. In this example, it is used as a handy place to specify URLs to documents and tools to author RFC-style documents using XML. RFC2629 is the original published document on authoring RFC-style documents in XML (). It is being updated (and called RFC2629(bis) and is . The tool to convert XML documents to RFC-style text (and HTML) files is described in document . Please also remember to check out for issues to note when writing drafts and the automated tools documented at . Remember, you don't need to have any other tools than a 'notepad' or your favorite editor to write xml2rfc drafts. You can use the web interface at for processing. The benefit of using XML editors is mostly catching those missing tags which the processor will warn you about, but you don't need to worry about the editors when getting started. This template is not meant to be a conclusive list of everything, but summarize the often-needed basic features to get one started. The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.
Now you can have a bit lengthier text here. The definition of the XML Data Type Description used to 'describe' an RFC or Internet Draft can be found in a document which we can refer to as RFC 2629. Let's refer to a couple more documents, just for practice: and L2TP. For text generation, these look equivalent, but the latter looks a bit neater in the HTML representation. You might also add a note about the usage of RFC2119 keywords here.. You can cross-reference the sections of the document in a stable manner either by section number - the usual way - or by section title (""): if the organization of the document changes the reference will still be to the correct section. However "sect2" is not a very good 'anchor' name because there is no guarantee that this section will remain as Section 2 for ever. It is best to use some sort of mnemonic for the contents of the section, which also makes it easier to remember the anchor when creating a cross-reference many pages later. A final note about anchors: anchors are XML 'tokens' and must therefore consist only of letters, numbers, underscores, hyphens and periods, starting with either a letter or underscore. Anchors with spaces or other punctuation characters are not allowed.
Technical documents often use lists. There are multiple list styles: 'empty', 'symbols', 'letters', 'numbers', 'hanging', 'format', etc. A more complicated list structure can be found in . First bullet Second bullet You can write text here as well - the difference, as compared with putting it in the next <t> element, is that there will not be a blank line between the last list item and this text if the processing instructions compact and subcompact are both set to "yes". Otherwise list items and the text before and after will be separated by blank lines. One can draw fancy diagrams as well; remember to ensure that they don't exceed 69 chars/line until v1.31 comes along. v1.31 should give you the ability to start figures at the left margin getting figures up to 72 characters wide. Setting the alignment for the whole figure to "center" instead of the default "left" causes all the components to be centred unless it is overridden just for the "artwork", as it is here.
Figures can have some text before the artwork should it be needed. Note that figures should NOT be inside <t> elements. Originally they were allowed to be but you will now get a warning that this is deprecated, and the figure should be a 'child' of the section element. Figures can also have text after the artwork and before the caption (if any). This figure has an anchor. This means that the figure will get a caption...
Note that including a CDATA means you don't need to escape most special characters you might otherwise have to. Figures may also have a title attribute but it won't be displayed unless there is also an anchor, and it will be somewhat disconcerting for readers if some figures have numbers and others don't..
There can be a lot of subsections (and sub-subsections). By default 3 levels of nesting show in table of contents but that can be adjusted with the value of the "tocdepth" processing instruction.
Another item that you might need is a table. The XML for tables is very similar to that for figures: Tables use ttcol to define column headers and widths. Every cell then has a "c" element for its content. ttcol #1 ttcol #2 c #1 c #2 c #3 c #4 c #5 c #6 which is a very simple example.
One useful style of lists uses 'hanging labels' where the list item is indented by the amount of the hangIndent with the hanging label displayed to the left of the first line of the item. This example shows how <vspace> can be used to deal with the odd label longer than the indent you really want to use (This is only really relevant to text mode output because the labels are always on separate lines in HTML output): With a label shorter than the hangIndent there is white space after the label and before the item text starts although it starts on the same line - clearly separating the label from the column of items. With a label longer than the hangIndent the label runs on into the text item and the separation is lost. Inserting a <vspace /> at the start of the item forces the new item to start on a new line emphasizing the separation again. List items in xml2rfc are made up of one <t> element. In some cases it would be nice to have more than one paragraph in a list item. This can be achieved with <vspace> also: First, a short item that needs only one paragraph. Second, a longer list item. We have more to say, and we want a separate paragraph. And here we can have it, and go on to our heart's content. If you just want an indented paragraph (say for a quotation) use the "empty" style: The quick, brown fox jumped over the lazy dog and lived to fool many another hunter in the great wood in the west.
Sometimes it is useful to be able to number items continuously although they are in separate <list> elements, maybe in separate sections. This can be achieved using the "format" style and a "counter" variable. First list with (say) requirements items: Requirement #1 Requirement #2 Requirement #3 It is wise to specify the indent explicitly so that all the items line up nicely. Otherwise the indent in each list is determined by the maximum length of the labels in that list, even if later lists have longer labels. A little later there is a second list with requirements items: Requirement #4 Requirement #5 Requirement #6 before this section finishes.
But in the next section the list of requirements continues: Third list with requirements items: Requirement #7 Requirement #8 Requirement #9 Requirement #10 And finally that is all about the requirements.
The artwork element from RFC 2629 supports an optional type attribute. While most possible values are just ignored, including the special case where the attribute is unspecified or just empty, some values are recognized. In particular, type='abnf' can be used if the artwork contains an Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF) syntax specification . As a special extension in its behavior, xml2rfc will attempt to validate the syntax and colorize the HTML output of ABNF, since it is so widely used in RFCs. It does this colorizing by relying on the full parsing it does right before, not on a quick and partial (e.g., line-by-line) pattern-based hack. ABNF is the only artwork type to benefit from this kind of internal support at this time. If the strict rfc-PI directive is activated, invalid ABNF content will cause xml2rfc to abort with an error message. Omitting the type attribute altogether is the obvious way to avoid having this validation and colorizing performed.
For example (to be viewed in HTML): " ; bracketed string of SP and VCHAR without angles ; prose description, to be used as last resort ]]> This is from the original RFC on ABNF , with its minor mistakes in manually folded comment lines purposely left intact, for illustration. Since the result is still valid ABNF (but incorrect with respect to what was intended), this showcases how colorizing might give a human author (or editor or reader) a better chance to spot the three mistakes (and correct them, e.g., with extra semicolons, as has been done in a more recent version  of the ABNF specification). Note that it is the white space characters at the beginning of the subsequent lines (including the commented ones) that conspire to extend the reach of those rules across several lines.
The most common form of xml2rfc parsing errors are those where a closing tag has been expected to be present before a new kind of tag is specified. In the example below, Introduction section's last paragraph was missing the closing t-element. The rest of the error messages can be rather easily understood as well by reading it carefully and examining the context. The reason is typically a missing tag somewhere.
=======8<======== ]]>
void main(int argc, char *argv[]) { int i; printf("program arguments are:\n"); for (i = 0; i < argc; i++) { printf("%d: \"%s\"\n", i, argv[i]); } exit(0); } /* main */ /* end of file */ ]]>
Remember, it's important to acknowledge people who have contributed to the work. This template was extended from an initial version written by Pekka Savola and contributed by him to the xml2rfc project.
This memo includes no request to IANA. (It's good - indeed pretty much mandatory now - to have an explicit note because otherwise IANA wastes cycles trying to figure out if something is needed..)
Remember to consider security from the start.. and all drafts are required to have a security considerations section before they will pass the IESG.
RFC2661 Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels Harvard University
1350 Mass. Ave. Cambridge MA 02138 - +1 617 495 3864 sob@harvard.edu
General keyword In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. Authors who follow these guidelines should incorporate this phrase near the beginning of their document: The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119. Note that the force of these words is modified by the requirement level of the document in which they are used. &RFC2629; Ultimate Plan for Taking Over the World Mad Dominators, Inc. &RFC4234; &RFC2234;
You can add appendices just as regular sections, the only difference is that they go within the "back" element, and not within the "middle" element. And they follow the "reference" elements.
--------------050601040806090500000205-- From julian.reschke@gmx.de Wed Jul 27 07:41:16 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 C08EE21F8A64 for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 07:41:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.326 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.326 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.727, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 vyFzYLHGDNSG for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 07:41:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id C7E0D21F8770 for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 07:41:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 27 Jul 2011 14:41:14 -0000 Received: from dhcp-14e3.meeting.ietf.org (EHLO [130.129.20.227]) [130.129.20.227] by mail.gmx.net (mp067) with SMTP; 27 Jul 2011 16:41:14 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1915285 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+IP/FAcaCIo2pqX4DkDFiVxmAoWqGkxhitG9Mpt3 OlOBkanXszzljp Message-ID: <4E302387.6000607@gmx.de> Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 16:41:11 +0200 From: Julian Reschke User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: elwynd@dial.pipex.com References: <4E3020BE.8000604@dial.pipex.com> In-Reply-To: <4E3020BE.8000604@dial.pipex.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Cc: XML2RFC Interest Group Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] CURRENT version - bug report - iprextract attribute incorrectly rejected 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: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 14:41:16 -0000 On 2011-07-27 16:29, Elwyn Davies wrote: > Hi. > > Trying to process slightly modified version of > http://tools.ietf.org/tools/templates/template-edu-xml2rfc.xml > Modified version attached (just the ipr attribute is now nomodification > trust200902) > > The following error message is given: >> Unable to Validate File >> >> xml2rfc: error: xml2rfc: error: iprExtract attribute not compatible >> with ipr noModificationTrust200902 around input line 99 in >> "/var/tmp/CGItemp55914.xml" >> >> Context (format: "file_basename:line_in_file:#elem_num:"): >> CGItemp55914.xml:55:#1:> ipr="noModificationTrust200902" iprExtract="codeExample" >> docName="draft-ietf-edu-xml2rfc-full-template-00.txt"> > > I believe this is not correct behaviour, but I may be confused. I believe this is correct, my XSLT code confirms that the iprextract attribute has no effect in this case (TODO: make my XSLT-abses diagnostics better in this case). > However the new experiemntal version accepts this situation (I was > testing the versions for comparison). So one is certainly wrong! Does having the attribute have an effect? Best regards, Julian From elwynd@dial.pipex.com Wed Jul 27 07:41:52 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 949AB21F8A66 for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 07:41:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.088 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.088 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.311, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2, J_CHICKENPOX_43=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_93=0.6, 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 3p4kP-2S0y7R for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 07:41:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from b.painless.aaisp.net.uk (b.painless.aaisp.net.uk [IPv6:2001:8b0:0:30::51bb:1e34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E23D21F8770 for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 07:41:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dhcp-172d.meeting.ietf.org ([130.129.23.45]) by b.painless.aaisp.net.uk with esmtpa (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Qm5Iw-0002ak-DE for xml2rfc@ietf.org; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 15:41:48 +0100 Message-ID: <4E3023A8.7000207@dial.pipex.com> Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 15:41:44 +0100 From: Elwyn Davies User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20081209) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: XML2RFC Interest Group Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------030804070902060608090007" Subject: [xml2rfc] Experimental version - bug report - explicit list variable not initialized X-BeenThere: xml2rfc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: elwynd@dial.pipex.com List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 14:41:52 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------030804070902060608090007 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi. Trying to process slightly modified version of http://tools.ietf.org/tools/templates/template-edu-xml2rfc.xml Modified version attached (just the ipr attribute is now nomodification trust200902) [Exhibits looping behaviour with plaintext output] Sections 3.1 and 3.2 contain a list which uses an explicit counter and format thus: > First list with (say) requirements items: > > Requirement #1 > Requirement #2 > Requirement #3 > It seems that 'counter' variable is not initialized. The output that I get using the online srvice is: > First list with (say) requirements items: > > R11 > Requirement #1 > R12 > Requirement #2 > R13 > Requirement #3 > Looks like 'reqs' is a random number. Regards Elwyn --------------030804070902060608090007 Content-Type: text/xml; name="template-edu-xml2rfc_a.xml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="template-edu-xml2rfc_a.xml" ]> Full Title Full Organization name
Espoo FI psavola@funet.fi
Folly Consulting
Soham UK +44 7889 488 335 elwynd@dial.pipex.com
Operations & Management Internet Engineering Task Force This is an abstract abstract. I-Ds and RFCs MUST have an abstract. Remember, don't add references here. So we would just say the 'language' used to write this document is defined in RFC 2629. This "forward" section is an unnumbered section that is not included in the table of contents. It is primarily used for the IESG to make comments about the document. It can also be used for comments about the status of the document and sometimes is used for the RFC2119 requirements language statement. In this example, it is used as a handy place to specify URLs to documents and tools to author RFC-style documents using XML. RFC2629 is the original published document on authoring RFC-style documents in XML (). It is being updated (and called RFC2629(bis) and is . The tool to convert XML documents to RFC-style text (and HTML) files is described in document . Please also remember to check out for issues to note when writing drafts and the automated tools documented at . Remember, you don't need to have any other tools than a 'notepad' or your favorite editor to write xml2rfc drafts. You can use the web interface at for processing. The benefit of using XML editors is mostly catching those missing tags which the processor will warn you about, but you don't need to worry about the editors when getting started. This template is not meant to be a conclusive list of everything, but summarize the often-needed basic features to get one started. The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.
Now you can have a bit lengthier text here. The definition of the XML Data Type Description used to 'describe' an RFC or Internet Draft can be found in a document which we can refer to as RFC 2629. Let's refer to a couple more documents, just for practice: and L2TP. For text generation, these look equivalent, but the latter looks a bit neater in the HTML representation. You might also add a note about the usage of RFC2119 keywords here.. You can cross-reference the sections of the document in a stable manner either by section number - the usual way - or by section title (""): if the organization of the document changes the reference will still be to the correct section. However "sect2" is not a very good 'anchor' name because there is no guarantee that this section will remain as Section 2 for ever. It is best to use some sort of mnemonic for the contents of the section, which also makes it easier to remember the anchor when creating a cross-reference many pages later. A final note about anchors: anchors are XML 'tokens' and must therefore consist only of letters, numbers, underscores, hyphens and periods, starting with either a letter or underscore. Anchors with spaces or other punctuation characters are not allowed.
Technical documents often use lists. There are multiple list styles: 'empty', 'symbols', 'letters', 'numbers', 'hanging', 'format', etc. A more complicated list structure can be found in . First bullet Second bullet You can write text here as well - the difference, as compared with putting it in the next <t> element, is that there will not be a blank line between the last list item and this text if the processing instructions compact and subcompact are both set to "yes". Otherwise list items and the text before and after will be separated by blank lines. One can draw fancy diagrams as well; remember to ensure that they don't exceed 69 chars/line until v1.31 comes along. v1.31 should give you the ability to start figures at the left margin getting figures up to 72 characters wide. Setting the alignment for the whole figure to "center" instead of the default "left" causes all the components to be centred unless it is overridden just for the "artwork", as it is here.
Figures can have some text before the artwork should it be needed. Note that figures should NOT be inside <t> elements. Originally they were allowed to be but you will now get a warning that this is deprecated, and the figure should be a 'child' of the section element. Figures can also have text after the artwork and before the caption (if any). This figure has an anchor. This means that the figure will get a caption...
Note that including a CDATA means you don't need to escape most special characters you might otherwise have to. Figures may also have a title attribute but it won't be displayed unless there is also an anchor, and it will be somewhat disconcerting for readers if some figures have numbers and others don't..
There can be a lot of subsections (and sub-subsections). By default 3 levels of nesting show in table of contents but that can be adjusted with the value of the "tocdepth" processing instruction.
Another item that you might need is a table. The XML for tables is very similar to that for figures: Tables use ttcol to define column headers and widths. Every cell then has a "c" element for its content. ttcol #1 ttcol #2 c #1 c #2 c #3 c #4 c #5 c #6 which is a very simple example.
One useful style of lists uses 'hanging labels' where the list item is indented by the amount of the hangIndent with the hanging label displayed to the left of the first line of the item. This example shows how <vspace> can be used to deal with the odd label longer than the indent you really want to use (This is only really relevant to text mode output because the labels are always on separate lines in HTML output): With a label shorter than the hangIndent there is white space after the label and before the item text starts although it starts on the same line - clearly separating the label from the column of items. With a label longer than the hangIndent the label runs on into the text item and the separation is lost. Inserting a <vspace /> at the start of the item forces the new item to start on a new line emphasizing the separation again. List items in xml2rfc are made up of one <t> element. In some cases it would be nice to have more than one paragraph in a list item. This can be achieved with <vspace> also: First, a short item that needs only one paragraph. Second, a longer list item. We have more to say, and we want a separate paragraph. And here we can have it, and go on to our heart's content. If you just want an indented paragraph (say for a quotation) use the "empty" style: The quick, brown fox jumped over the lazy dog and lived to fool many another hunter in the great wood in the west.
Sometimes it is useful to be able to number items continuously although they are in separate <list> elements, maybe in separate sections. This can be achieved using the "format" style and a "counter" variable. First list with (say) requirements items: Requirement #1 Requirement #2 Requirement #3 It is wise to specify the indent explicitly so that all the items line up nicely. Otherwise the indent in each list is determined by the maximum length of the labels in that list, even if later lists have longer labels. A little later there is a second list with requirements items: Requirement #4 Requirement #5 Requirement #6 before this section finishes.
But in the next section the list of requirements continues: Third list with requirements items: Requirement #7 Requirement #8 Requirement #9 Requirement #10 And finally that is all about the requirements.
The artwork element from RFC 2629 supports an optional type attribute. While most possible values are just ignored, including the special case where the attribute is unspecified or just empty, some values are recognized. In particular, type='abnf' can be used if the artwork contains an Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF) syntax specification . As a special extension in its behavior, xml2rfc will attempt to validate the syntax and colorize the HTML output of ABNF, since it is so widely used in RFCs. It does this colorizing by relying on the full parsing it does right before, not on a quick and partial (e.g., line-by-line) pattern-based hack. ABNF is the only artwork type to benefit from this kind of internal support at this time. If the strict rfc-PI directive is activated, invalid ABNF content will cause xml2rfc to abort with an error message. Omitting the type attribute altogether is the obvious way to avoid having this validation and colorizing performed.
For example (to be viewed in HTML): " ; bracketed string of SP and VCHAR without angles ; prose description, to be used as last resort ]]> This is from the original RFC on ABNF , with its minor mistakes in manually folded comment lines purposely left intact, for illustration. Since the result is still valid ABNF (but incorrect with respect to what was intended), this showcases how colorizing might give a human author (or editor or reader) a better chance to spot the three mistakes (and correct them, e.g., with extra semicolons, as has been done in a more recent version  of the ABNF specification). Note that it is the white space characters at the beginning of the subsequent lines (including the commented ones) that conspire to extend the reach of those rules across several lines.
The most common form of xml2rfc parsing errors are those where a closing tag has been expected to be present before a new kind of tag is specified. In the example below, Introduction section's last paragraph was missing the closing t-element. The rest of the error messages can be rather easily understood as well by reading it carefully and examining the context. The reason is typically a missing tag somewhere.
=======8<======== ]]>
void main(int argc, char *argv[]) { int i; printf("program arguments are:\n"); for (i = 0; i < argc; i++) { printf("%d: \"%s\"\n", i, argv[i]); } exit(0); } /* main */ /* end of file */ ]]>
Remember, it's important to acknowledge people who have contributed to the work. This template was extended from an initial version written by Pekka Savola and contributed by him to the xml2rfc project.
This memo includes no request to IANA. (It's good - indeed pretty much mandatory now - to have an explicit note because otherwise IANA wastes cycles trying to figure out if something is needed..)
Remember to consider security from the start.. and all drafts are required to have a security considerations section before they will pass the IESG.
RFC2661 Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels Harvard University
1350 Mass. Ave. Cambridge MA 02138 - +1 617 495 3864 sob@harvard.edu
General keyword In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. Authors who follow these guidelines should incorporate this phrase near the beginning of their document: The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119. Note that the force of these words is modified by the requirement level of the document in which they are used. &RFC2629; Ultimate Plan for Taking Over the World Mad Dominators, Inc. &RFC4234; &RFC2234;
You can add appendices just as regular sections, the only difference is that they go within the "back" element, and not within the "middle" element. And they follow the "reference" elements.
--------------030804070902060608090007-- From elwynd@dial.pipex.com Wed Jul 27 08:30:46 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 9851221F8880 for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 08:30:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.719 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.719 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.120, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 qwziOUoufuF3 for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 08:30:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from b.painless.aaisp.net.uk (b.painless.aaisp.net.uk [IPv6:2001:8b0:0:30::51bb:1e34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 134C521F84D4 for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 08:30:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dhcp-172d.meeting.ietf.org ([130.129.23.45]) by b.painless.aaisp.net.uk with esmtpa (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Qm642-000568-7S; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 16:30:26 +0100 Message-ID: <4E302F09.5050609@dial.pipex.com> Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 16:30:17 +0100 From: Elwyn Davies User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20081209) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Julian Reschke References: <4E3020BE.8000604@dial.pipex.com> <4E302387.6000607@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: <4E302387.6000607@gmx.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: XML2RFC Interest Group Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] CURRENT version - bug report - iprextract attribute incorrectly rejected X-BeenThere: xml2rfc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: elwynd@dial.pipex.com List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 15:30:46 -0000 Julian Reschke wrote: > On 2011-07-27 16:29, Elwyn Davies wrote: >> Hi. >> >> Trying to process slightly modified version of >> http://tools.ietf.org/tools/templates/template-edu-xml2rfc.xml >> Modified version attached (just the ipr attribute is now nomodification >> trust200902) >> >> The following error message is given: >>> Unable to Validate File >>> >>> xml2rfc: error: xml2rfc: error: iprExtract attribute not compatible >>> with ipr noModificationTrust200902 around input line 99 in >>> "/var/tmp/CGItemp55914.xml" >>> >>> Context (format: "file_basename:line_in_file:#elem_num:"): >>> CGItemp55914.xml:55:#1:>> ipr="noModificationTrust200902" iprExtract="codeExample" >>> docName="draft-ietf-edu-xml2rfc-full-template-00.txt"> >> >> I believe this is not correct behaviour, but I may be confused. > > I believe this is correct, my XSLT code confirms that the iprextract > attribute has no effect in this case (TODO: make my XSLT-abses > diagnostics better in this case). > >> However the new experiemntal version accepts this situation (I was >> testing the versions for comparison). So one is certainly wrong! > > Does having the attribute have an effect? > > Best regards, Julian > Not currently. However I think that there possibly ought to be to support the import of the last para of section 4.3 of RFC 5377. This is somewhat arcane but, hey, that's the usual situation here. /E From tony@att.com Wed Jul 27 10:57:56 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 1A20C21F8B3A for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 10:57:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.775 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.775 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.824, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 PoZH+KvKHAC9 for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 10:57:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail120.messagelabs.com (mail120.messagelabs.com [216.82.250.83]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C04E221F8AED for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 10:57:54 -0700 (PDT) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: tony@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-14.tower-120.messagelabs.com!1311789468!29948359!1 X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.17; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.145] Received: (qmail 28489 invoked from network); 27 Jul 2011 17:57:52 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp6.sbc.com (HELO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.145) by server-14.tower-120.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 27 Jul 2011 17:57:52 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p6RHw998031644 for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 13:58:13 -0400 Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p6RHvowY030638 for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 13:57:50 -0400 Received: from aldc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p6RHvOnX015660 for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 13:57:24 -0400 Received: from mailgw1.maillennium.att.com (mailgw1.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p6RHvJR3015537 for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 13:57:20 -0400 Received: from [135.70.108.93] (vpn-135-70-108-93.vpn.swst.att.com[135.70.108.93]) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with ESMTP id <20110727175719gw100e4ld3e> (Authid: tony); Wed, 27 Jul 2011 17:57:19 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.70.108.93] Message-ID: <4E30517C.9000502@att.com> Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 13:57:16 -0400 From: Tony Hansen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: elwynd@dial.pipex.com References: <4E2F8F05.8080606@gmail.com> <4E30155A.6010800@dial.pipex.com> In-Reply-To: <4E30155A.6010800@dial.pipex.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: xml2rfc Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] xml2rfc (experimental) looping 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: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 17:57:56 -0000 There's an update from the xml2rfc2 developers that I installed around noon that seems to be slightly more stable. Tony On 7/27/2011 9:40 AM, Elwyn Davies wrote: > Hi. > > It looks as if this is a more generic problem. > > The problems I reported yesterday with > http://tools.ietf.org/tools/templates/template-edu-xml2rfc.xml > give exactly these symptoms. > > I retried with a different output format and got a different error > (reported separately). > > Regards, > Elwyn > > > Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> Hi, >> >> The draft I've been working on today works OK with the production >> tool in Fast or Strict mode, and works with the development tool >> (web service) when I select HTML, Web/PDF or expanded XML output. >> So there are no XML errors, apparently. >> >> But it appears to loop when I select any other output format. >> At least in the case of Plaintext, it finally says: >> >> Gateway Time-out >> >> The gateway did not receive a timely response from the upstream >> server or application. >> Apache/2.2.19 (Debian) Server at xml.resource.org Port 80 >> >> Would somebody like my source file? >> > > _______________________________________________ > xml2rfc mailing list > xml2rfc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xml2rfc From elwynd@dial.pipex.com Wed Jul 27 12:08:21 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 1E0E75E8009 for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 12:08:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.699 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 yWmyM6GkeDUr for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 12:08:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from auth.a.painless.aaisp.net.uk (auth.a.painless.aaisp.net.uk [IPv6:2001:8b0:0:30:230:48ff:fe72:d05c]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AD1B5E8016 for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 12:08:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dhcp-172d.meeting.ietf.org ([130.129.23.45]) by a.painless.aaisp.net.uk with esmtpa (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Qm9Sr-0001eQ-J3; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 20:08:18 +0100 Message-ID: <4E30621E.30609@dial.pipex.com> Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 20:08:14 +0100 From: Elwyn Davies User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20081209) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tony Hansen References: <4E2F8F05.8080606@gmail.com> <4E30155A.6010800@dial.pipex.com> <4E30517C.9000502@att.com> In-Reply-To: <4E30517C.9000502@att.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: xml2rfc Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] xml2rfc (experimental) looping X-BeenThere: xml2rfc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: elwynd@dial.pipex.com List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 19:08:21 -0000 9Hi. OK - I tried this out on the problems I have reported. 1. Plaintext output no longer hangs up. FIXED. 2. The 'SYSTEM' entity problem seems to have gone away. FIXED 3. symrefs = "no" problem. STILL PRESENT 4. Archaic boilerplate indicators: another one is not present (trust200811). STILL PRESENT 5. Uninitialized counters for lists. NOT FIXED (manifests in both samples I used) 6. Additional related problem: There's an update from the xml2rfc2 developers that I installed around > noon that seems to be slightly more stable. > > Tony > > On 7/27/2011 9:40 AM, Elwyn Davies wrote: >> Hi. >> >> It looks as if this is a more generic problem. >> >> The problems I reported yesterday with >> http://tools.ietf.org/tools/templates/template-edu-xml2rfc.xml >> give exactly these symptoms. >> >> I retried with a different output format and got a different error >> (reported separately). >> >> Regards, >> Elwyn >> >> >> Brian E Carpenter wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> The draft I've been working on today works OK with the production >>> tool in Fast or Strict mode, and works with the development tool >>> (web service) when I select HTML, Web/PDF or expanded XML output. >>> So there are no XML errors, apparently. >>> >>> But it appears to loop when I select any other output format. >>> At least in the case of Plaintext, it finally says: >>> >>> Gateway Time-out >>> >>> The gateway did not receive a timely response from the upstream >>> server or application. >>> Apache/2.2.19 (Debian) Server at xml.resource.org Port 80 >>> >>> Would somebody like my source file? >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> xml2rfc mailing list >> xml2rfc@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xml2rfc From brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com Wed Jul 27 15:17:10 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 C4C1911E8178 for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 15:17:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.602 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.003, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, 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 Z-Wkuq78k0UT for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 15:17:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A351B11E812A for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 15:17:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by iye7 with SMTP id 7so2605808iye.31 for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 15:17:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=oPuaw0SJLYKQL9qJnyLqkOa0jAExow0Cjy7bUej1HKw=; b=NsdEReb/EiLKTepAQ5Md9IpcSZB2Xi42DbYjVKxYO2OeCBAGD9bL8vegxj+hbEwnqt URecbfSfbkx/si9G0PSUKwfYP7EbuHQz914O6o0aSx4zOT5+I40mExkx0F298cr3Ihab v7c6tLBbUEMsCmFSRGKl50rb1EQeurQpD9850= Received: by 10.42.131.65 with SMTP id y1mr264982ics.301.1311805029300; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 15:17:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [130.216.38.124] (stf-brian.sfac.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.38.124]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id h6sm402004icw.19.2011.07.27.15.17.05 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 27 Jul 2011 15:17:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4E308E52.6030407@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 10:16:50 +1200 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tony Hansen References: <4E2F8F05.8080606@gmail.com> <4E30155A.6010800@dial.pipex.com> <4E30517C.9000502@att.com> In-Reply-To: <4E30517C.9000502@att.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: xml2rfc Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] xml2rfc (experimental) looping 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: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 22:17:10 -0000 Yes, that version does not loop and does generate a correct .txt file for the source file that was looping yesterday. Thanks to all the elves who are working on this. Regards Brian On 2011-07-28 05:57, Tony Hansen wrote: > There's an update from the xml2rfc2 developers that I installed around > noon that seems to be slightly more stable. > > Tony > > On 7/27/2011 9:40 AM, Elwyn Davies wrote: >> Hi. >> >> It looks as if this is a more generic problem. >> >> The problems I reported yesterday with >> http://tools.ietf.org/tools/templates/template-edu-xml2rfc.xml >> give exactly these symptoms. >> >> I retried with a different output format and got a different error >> (reported separately). >> >> Regards, >> Elwyn >> >> >> Brian E Carpenter wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> The draft I've been working on today works OK with the production >>> tool in Fast or Strict mode, and works with the development tool >>> (web service) when I select HTML, Web/PDF or expanded XML output. >>> So there are no XML errors, apparently. >>> >>> But it appears to loop when I select any other output format. >>> At least in the case of Plaintext, it finally says: >>> >>> Gateway Time-out >>> >>> The gateway did not receive a timely response from the upstream >>> server or application. >>> Apache/2.2.19 (Debian) Server at xml.resource.org Port 80 >>> >>> Would somebody like my source file? >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> xml2rfc mailing list >> xml2rfc@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xml2rfc > From hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com Thu Jul 28 02:22:59 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 832E621F87E2 for ; Thu, 28 Jul 2011 02:22:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.87 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.87 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.071, BAYES_00=-2.599, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, 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 q9EAXA15OwZN for ; Thu, 28 Jul 2011 02:22:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gy0-f172.google.com (mail-gy0-f172.google.com [209.85.160.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 001AD21F87C5 for ; Thu, 28 Jul 2011 02:22:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by gyd5 with SMTP id 5so2010882gyd.31 for ; Thu, 28 Jul 2011 02:22:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=PF5BpRSJ45vL8cZDd22t1bm1RMSqgurL4p8w7ddScOA=; b=cNZQQzlDRRTO4lSK1tNdx7xhXcuCi2r13xhOHwBgmF39Fli+YVeQeoIQzaxm0ewPCq TXroHD/2nu6XtIWzEwg2ST5f7OFzKAiF97tI/V7w8gfrBEvmvntbKKATtP6iWZIOnw86 dpuY2SpWyZ5FjEstySsXIWHN/dBBwtaGGXpCU= Received: by 10.142.149.19 with SMTP id w19mr568265wfd.32.1311844978240; Thu, 28 Jul 2011 02:22:58 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.142.255.2 with HTTP; Thu, 28 Jul 2011 02:22:38 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4E2E3FFE.1040809@it.aoyama.ac.jp> References: <4E2DE139.5040205@gmail.com> <4E2DE7C0.5080108@gmx.de> <4E2E02A1.7060305@gmail.com> <4E2E10DA.7060608@gmail.com> <4E2E2E24.5090508@gmail.com> <4E2E3FFE.1040809@it.aoyama.ac.jp> From: Frank Ellermann Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 11:22:38 +0200 Message-ID: To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Martin_J=2E_D=FCrst?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: xml2rfc Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Development version is picky about . 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, 28 Jul 2011 09:22:59 -0000 On 26 July 2011 06:18, "Martin J. D=FCrst" wrote: > I very much encourage the team to evolve the DTD so > that there is no need anymore for > nesting. Above all there should be a "stable forever" DTD published in a 2629bis for the purpose of its registration as public IETF ID in the IANA registry, where absolutely nobody can touch a single erroneous comma in it without involving the IAB. > (I can give help with the DTD if necessary.) -Frank From hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com Thu Jul 28 02:43:42 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 A263221F8C39 for ; Thu, 28 Jul 2011 02:43:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.881 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.881 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.082, BAYES_00=-2.599, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, 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 xrbQ-QyXDYiX for ; Thu, 28 Jul 2011 02:43:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gw0-f43.google.com (mail-gw0-f43.google.com [74.125.83.43]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27A6421F8C38 for ; Thu, 28 Jul 2011 02:43:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by gwm11 with SMTP id 11so2739591gwm.16 for ; Thu, 28 Jul 2011 02:43:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=OwcxFbFv7C/yXFrOiKgO7jE9AQN5MbEdQ2i6bvxbQ9M=; b=lj/t5m658pNoVscC5mm+9M5T3pUrP51e8sxo7GwCLvW7lRIHjbXrxt91YVMRGSwu7y 9FiKW6zSdG9+O2ZmcPkXrlRIF20jdxuLmEOwQ7CvfpSsWv6e1YSxtN6xZ2m889dij8lr 7C/K28eGyue4XbW9zJmayEW01IFobPbky39iU= Received: by 10.142.149.19 with SMTP id w19mr579634wfd.32.1311846221301; Thu, 28 Jul 2011 02:43:41 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.142.255.2 with HTTP; Thu, 28 Jul 2011 02:43:21 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4E2E3F32.3050509@it.aoyama.ac.jp> References: <4E2DE139.5040205@gmail.com> <4E2DE7C0.5080108@gmx.de> <4E2E02A1.7060305@gmail.com> <4E2E10DA.7060608@gmail.com> <4E2E28FB.3070608@gmail.com> <4E2E3F32.3050509@it.aoyama.ac.jp> From: Frank Ellermann Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 11:43:21 +0200 Message-ID: To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Martin_J=2E_D=FCrst?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: xml2rfc Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Why development version dislikes List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 09:43:42 -0000 On 26 July 2011 06:14, "Martin J. D=FCrst" wrote: > Of all things, we don't want to give the impression > that the IETF is calling something XML that isn't. IIRC the W3C is calling something "URL" in newer XML versions that is no STD 66 URL (or at least 3987 IRI). ...but of course DTD subsets should follow XML rules. This used to work as expected in 2008 (xml2rfc happy, w3 validator happy, author happy). -Frank From tony@att.com Sat Jul 30 06:32:32 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 A875521F8876 for ; Sat, 30 Jul 2011 06:32:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.023 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.023 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.576, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 6PnJtezeBver for ; Sat, 30 Jul 2011 06:32:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail120.messagelabs.com (mail120.messagelabs.com [216.82.250.83]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 356A021F8A69 for ; Sat, 30 Jul 2011 06:32:27 -0700 (PDT) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: tony@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-13.tower-120.messagelabs.com!1312032746!30445222!1 X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.17; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.145] Received: (qmail 7634 invoked from network); 30 Jul 2011 13:32:27 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp6.sbc.com (HELO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.145) by server-13.tower-120.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 30 Jul 2011 13:32:27 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p6UDWqs2009031 for ; Sat, 30 Jul 2011 09:32:52 -0400 Received: from alpd052.aldc.att.com (alpd052.aldc.att.com [130.8.42.31]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p6UDWmlS009006 for ; Sat, 30 Jul 2011 09:32:48 -0400 Received: from aldc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p6UDWM9T017912 for ; Sat, 30 Jul 2011 09:32:22 -0400 Received: from mailgw1.maillennium.att.com (dns.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alpd052.aldc.att.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p6UDWHuA017860 for ; Sat, 30 Jul 2011 09:32:17 -0400 Received: from [135.70.11.242] (vpn-135-70-11-242.vpn.west.att.com[135.70.11.242]) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with ESMTP id <20110730133215gw100e4lm7e> (Authid: tony); Sat, 30 Jul 2011 13:32:16 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [135.70.11.242] Message-ID: <4E3407DD.4030003@att.com> Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2011 09:32:13 -0400 From: Tony Hansen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: elwynd@dial.pipex.com References: <4E2F8F05.8080606@gmail.com> <4E30155A.6010800@dial.pipex.com> <4E30517C.9000502@att.com> <4E30621E.30609@dial.pipex.com> In-Reply-To: <4E30621E.30609@dial.pipex.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: xml2rfc Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] xml2rfc (experimental) looping 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: Sat, 30 Jul 2011 13:32:32 -0000 Note -- I *did* add a release number to the web page, as well as a log of the svn comments since the previous version. There was a new version put up last night that fixes lots of issues. I haven't gone through explicitly to see if any of these particular issues were fixed, though. Tony Hansen On 7/27/2011 3:08 PM, Elwyn Davies wrote: > 9Hi. > > OK - I tried this out on the problems I have reported. > > 1. Plaintext output no longer hangs up. FIXED. > 2. The 'SYSTEM' entity problem seems to have gone away. FIXED > 3. symrefs = "no" problem. STILL PRESENT > 4. Archaic boilerplate indicators: another one is not present > (trust200811). STILL PRESENT > 5. Uninitialized counters for lists. NOT FIXED (manifests in both > samples I used) > 6. Additional related problem: list labels such as R(72 ) where the space after the number is > spurious. However the development version does a better job of the > hangingIndent than the old version. > > But overall this is looking pretty good. > > Could you put a release date/number on the web site so we can report > errors against versions? > Regards, > Elwyn > > > Tony Hansen wrote: >> There's an update from the xml2rfc2 developers that I installed >> around noon that seems to be slightly more stable. >> >> Tony >> >> On 7/27/2011 9:40 AM, Elwyn Davies wrote: >>> Hi. >>> >>> It looks as if this is a more generic problem. >>> >>> The problems I reported yesterday with >>> http://tools.ietf.org/tools/templates/template-edu-xml2rfc.xml >>> give exactly these symptoms. >>> >>> I retried with a different output format and got a different error >>> (reported separately). >>> >>> Regards, >>> Elwyn >>> >>> >>> Brian E Carpenter wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> The draft I've been working on today works OK with the production >>>> tool in Fast or Strict mode, and works with the development tool >>>> (web service) when I select HTML, Web/PDF or expanded XML output. >>>> So there are no XML errors, apparently. >>>> >>>> But it appears to loop when I select any other output format. >>>> At least in the case of Plaintext, it finally says: >>>> >>>> Gateway Time-out >>>> >>>> The gateway did not receive a timely response from the upstream >>>> server or application. >>>> Apache/2.2.19 (Debian) Server at xml.resource.org Port 80 >>>> >>>> Would somebody like my source file? >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> xml2rfc mailing list >>> xml2rfc@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xml2rfc >