From nobody Mon Apr 8 04:18:55 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xml2rfc-dev@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xml2rfc-dev@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4505F1201EB; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 04:18:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aT0gG2Sj5qU1; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 04:18:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from durif.tools.ietf.org (durif.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2001:1900:3001:11::3d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B9C3912006D; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 04:18:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from henrik by durif.tools.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1hDSIW-0008DY-Hl; Mon, 08 Apr 2019 04:18:44 -0700 To: xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org, xml2rfc@ietf.org Cc: rfc-markdown@ietf.org Message-Id: From: Henrik Levkowetz Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2019 04:18:44 -0700 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rfc-markdown@ietf.org, xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org, xml2rfc@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: henrik@levkowetz.com X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on durif.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Archived-At: Subject: [xml2rfc-dev] New xml2rfc release: v2.22.3 X-BeenThere: xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion about particulars of xml2rfc V3 design, development and code." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2019 11:18:47 -0000 Hi, This is an automatic notification about a new xml2rfc release, v2.22.3, generated when running the mkrelease script. Release notes: xml2rfc (2.22.3) ietf; urgency=medium This release brings further tweaks and imporvements to the v3 text format output in the area of Table of Content formatting, and fixes a number of bugs. * Tweaked the handling of ToC page numbers in the v3 text format. * Tweaked the xml inserted by the preptool for the ToC to give ToC indentation and spacing which better match the legacy text format (and also looks better). * Added a rewrite of

Ack. Agreed on having some kind of doc, because I= 9;m starting to loose track.

On Tue, 9 Apr 2019, 08:11 Julian Reschke, <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:<= br>

On 08.04.2019 23:48, Miek Gieben wr= ote:
> Hi,
>
> Compiling an xml doc with v3, gives this error:
>
> Parsing file 8341.xml
> 8341.xml(3): Warning: Expected a 'docName' attribute in the &l= t;rfc/>
> element, but found none.
>
> Is docName now back ?

Actually is was never gone in xml2rfc as per
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-levkowetz-xml2rfc-v3-implemen= tation-notes-08#section-3.1.21.5>.

Note that I agree with Henrik's summary, but it sure would be cool if w= e
had a coherent description of what v3-as-accepted-by-xml2rfc is.

Best regards, Julian

--000000000000a99941058613b85e-- From nobody Tue Apr 9 04:22:14 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xml2rfc-dev@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xml2rfc-dev@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4083120770; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 04:22:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iP4fZ3hxFLzU; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 04:21:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zinfandel.tools.ietf.org (zinfandel.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2001:1890:126c::1:2a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F4C0120778; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 04:21:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from h-202-242.a357.priv.bahnhof.se ([158.174.202.242]:60916 helo=tannat.localdomain) by zinfandel.tools.ietf.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1hDopC-0000km-BE; Tue, 09 Apr 2019 04:21:58 -0700 To: Julian Reschke , xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org, xml2rfc@ietf.org References:

Cc: rfc-markdown@ietf.org From: Henrik Levkowetz Message-ID: Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2019 13:21:44 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="WaengBhpGqbrjVDUgX60d1CqGrr4Hckud" X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 158.174.202.242 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rfc-markdown@ietf.org, xml2rfc@ietf.org, xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org, julian.reschke@gmx.de X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: henrik@levkowetz.com X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 26 Dec 2011 16:24:06 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on zinfandel.tools.ietf.org) X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Archived-At: Subject: Re: [xml2rfc-dev] initials handling, was: [xml2rfc] New xml2rfc release: v2.22.3 X-BeenThere: xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion about particulars of xml2rfc V3 design, development and code." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2019 11:22:01 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --WaengBhpGqbrjVDUgX60d1CqGrr4Hckud Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="FsCRG4B06P5d8xDgVpsAUuQu8V80hJrrc"; protected-headers="v1" From: Henrik Levkowetz To: Julian Reschke , xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org, xml2rfc@ietf.org Cc: rfc-markdown@ietf.org Message-ID: Subject: Re: initials handling, was: [xml2rfc] New xml2rfc release: v2.22.3 References:

In-Reply-To: --FsCRG4B06P5d8xDgVpsAUuQu8V80hJrrc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Julian, On 2019-04-08 13:50, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 08.04.2019 13:18, Henrik Levkowetz wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> This is an automatic notification about a new xml2rfc release, >> v2.22.3, generated when running the mkrelease script. >> >> Release notes: >> >> xml2rfc (2.22.3) ietf; urgency=3Dmedium >> >> This release brings further tweaks and imporvements to the v3 text >> format output in the area of Table of Content formatting, and fixes= a >> number of bugs. >> >> * Tweaked the handling of ToC page numbers in the v3 text format. >> >> * Tweaked the xml inserted by the preptool for the ToC to give ToC >> indentation and spacing which better match the legacy text format= >> (and also looks better). >> >> * Added a rewrite of

On Apr 9, 2019, at 10:34 AM, Heather Flanagan <rse@rfc-editor.org> = wrote:

On = Apr 9, 2019, at 09:01, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:

On 09.04.2019 17:37, = HANSEN, TONY L wrote:
On 4/9/19, 8:19 AM, "Julian Reschke" = <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:

   On 09.04.2019 14:11, HANSEN, TONY L = wrote:
...
How is the requirement to generate a single initial = communicated within the XML? By looking at the RFC number? Or by a = different attribute specified somewhere? While using the RFC number = might seem simpler, I think it's better to be transparent and use an = attribute.
...

   Yes.

   But we really should ask the RFC Editor = whether they are sure about
   this. After = all, it seems to be a violation of the style guide:
   <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7322#section-4.8.6.2>.
For re-rendering old RFCs that were = originally written using a previous style guide? The interesting thing = about style guides is that they do change over time.

Yes, but in that case the = rendering depends on the RFC the reference
appears in, not = on the referenced document.

FWIW, it would = be great if revisions to the style guide also defined a
precise start date from which the rules apply.

I know = that we've had various means of doing these stylistic machinations = through the years, such as code that says "if rfc number < some = value, do this special stylistic processing" or "if public date is = before some value, do this special stylistic processing ". The reason I = asked my question was that I don't know how the current V3 code is = making its decisions for these stylistic issues. My suggestion above is = that instead of having code like that, it should instead be "if some = <rfc> attribute is set, do this to the initials".

Hi all,

I=E2=80=99m discussing this with Sandy and Alice now; a = response to the list may take a day or so as I=E2=80=99m traveling at = the moment.

And = coming back to this:

A longstanding = principle for referencing RFCs is to make the reference match what is on = the front page of the RFC itself, over what information is in any other = location. This is something we should be clearer about in the Style = Guide, but it is a practice we=E2=80=99ve enforced for quite a long = time.

Changing the tool to match this = longstanding practice is not ideal, but it is expedient given that the = proper way to handle this is an extensive data cleanup of the citation = library. I=E2=80=99ve asked the RPC to prioritize getting documents = published and format implementation over this kind of data cleanup for = now.

-Heather = Flanagan

= --Apple-Mail=_70EA8E26-3E37-43FE-B9DB-177E25DC9DDC-- From nobody Thu Apr 11 08:11:03 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xml2rfc-dev@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xml2rfc-dev@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06ED712066D; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 08:10:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=gmx.net Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PtH450gLFEh8; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 08:10:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 892F81206BC; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 08:10:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1554995446; bh=cBZtauIXTx4V33WA4UT1vSMjEwVOc+798+Txc25WJ5M=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=SGmAeAq1wkjwv6otc/xBU4uZduO9TpUNvGCP6V6+Qoh0E9QO7+ONsTn78EaS/G03N 1rw+DkSyoFKZF9hsVuHKD47xO2/l1UJSu/iHytwtnlscfMx+b05pb23hZ/jjqcxsDQ e9+iQHCGplhAnV4892lfbFB0N1jjH7TEVJmd9uG8= X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c Received: from [192.168.1.34] ([217.91.35.233]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx001 [212.227.17.190]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MD9q8-1h6uld3gNQ-00Gcj6; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 17:10:45 +0200 To: Heather Flanagan Cc: "rfc-markdown@ietf.org" , "xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org" , "xml2rfc@ietf.org" References:

<561D7097-7155-4DDD-8C5D-FA65663B5105@att.com> <280b0cf8-a7d0-0334-42fe-a9cd6e7966d7@gmx.de> <1DC0E053-509F-4531-9EAF-1A287FFA4ECD@att.com> <8cedc522-614c-039c-e550-8f5494ab040f@gmx.de> <308E0D17-7B84-4782-B17D-EE06EE80E6BE@rfc-editor.org> <3A0F4CD6-451F-44E2-9DA4-28235C638588@rfc-editor.org> From: Julian Reschke Message-ID: <666df9be-1922-e82e-f3ed-047a7708937c@gmx.de> Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 17:10:44 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <3A0F4CD6-451F-44E2-9DA4-28235C638588@rfc-editor.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:WyrY1bUWDPLoi/MZLzRdFk9sP+jfTt9/DaYg+MRNgO1GWQ5BCSB hdvbopLAY5/XzLXlrREIXVRvUvmPOEf9e8eZPWp6BQuExMcTjz8Z9vaEEiwzhbFGJlOHtTs JXPm0aLyLEgMHpn96+v1W6keH4SN1UjKSNkQiLXRnt2kEsRgLIcc0WqkciIjWmxtEsjXAXa qOIPdiY8tNzjx22wzDeIA== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:trjc7gyZ2G8=:GchDk7Z9Pq+kZPSrEZfEq5 e4+4jedCzhdEpB6EU963/faRJbrLe5zjKsxGXosAFgfWvFJG4LJLJzddS0GJDKxrO5pLlFTiS 4+hZVClsIqsUD1FZ4brAu7Wg/T8BjOtx0s4MjNwC92R93BYfE+FXfQiB9R9ywHupZpuWW4kiD YZUO81vvEbMx+Pw/AccfKuYvvGB8bf0cJ/4/0UF6ZGjtqzPtlTbCqDSFE3V/GGo7OwzM9ZMBm 4416NcgNDz337KKtLBNF+oohvZBcBxC1DRAmHmSP13EifKEnNYhdZ7SdlWC+E0qCIfXFCN1Xn p3GG1wa+g52ZVhKCGYhcPl1gNTWZc485ZtJFbmQk6i7S0x7Ap8S7FhOKhhmEfhUuY94wnntMC 6A/63QE4XvlEVri+6qw73vGmuobwjgIB4+9ZGH7g55Vb/DYAodTMZ+8s+vK5iRptPidEjJ9un c5sc0QPx1mU6sWnhLEOHWhMJlXSPNQxwd2tdcnVt5M2AU8Cl+RNk1RFBKUJXX/hE8unNsC2o7 fmQssKNEcolDkF4fduFUxcSBNi1ZsHia/wOKlr2wteziNwy7C9W6giyoDeLfeY8oyUdPB1YH9 6NwjN1zgTaZRNF2zM03ba26JcK2dVHtY8MC+NOXtvd5asCfezr0k4pSNJ5FDtdlkD8/00mjad kbvhaOlfc0WsA6V8FefJsDqbHwlZ+cMXb2xXSP0BMyVyzGl1WR5RSmycdgaxWpFOlg9RIO61D fR3R8tuYM34tMZUTkeDnmAfm+7jyDzAqcPe3P0dM9MF6Y3K4WszX5GZ/VHBf7BrH3+P7ul0s7 h5qZXF1Fhq/jG8xHvYYfUi17skluOFN8ThliXyvAXLnRkjZtIkSyKf/1Usx43TcCucj1u1n75 8NPBG4H5FOTk0AnvGHymAHANG6DuUGtJqR2faMaKbPLi3H9+VNFbpHT5NFOFM7Q2dZEiYSkkY JCsjwbNVbQA== Archived-At: Subject: Re: [xml2rfc-dev] [xml2rfc] [Rfc-markdown] initials handling, was: New xml2rfc release: v2.22.3 X-BeenThere: xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion about particulars of xml2rfc V3 design, development and code." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 15:10:56 -0000 On 11.04.2019 17:06, Heather Flanagan wrote: > ... > And coming back to this: > > A longstanding principle for referencing RFCs is to make the reference > match what is on the front page of the RFC itself, over what information > is in any other location. This is something we should be clearer about > in the Style Guide, but it is a practice we=E2=80=99ve enforced for quit= e a long > time. > > Changing the tool to match this longstanding practice is not ideal, but > it is expedient given that the proper way to handle this is an extensive > data cleanup of the citation library. I=E2=80=99ve asked the RPC to prio= ritize > getting documents published and format implementation over this kind of > data cleanup for now. > ... FWIW, this indeed is *not* a change in the style, as far as I can tell. Rather than that, it just highlights an inconsistency between the published elements and the actual RFCs. The fix IMHO is to fix the files when the problem shows up. Putting extra logic into the formatter seems to be clearly the wrong approach. Best regards, Julian From nobody Sun Apr 21 22:24:04 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xml2rfc-dev@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xml2rfc-dev@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C88EA120072; Sun, 21 Apr 2019 22:23:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=gmx.net Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id v4gK8V549BEy; Sun, 21 Apr 2019 22:23:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.21]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 98AB112006F; Sun, 21 Apr 2019 22:23:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1555910627; bh=b3PPbmVyhZyrPRr3yuc/7XNDfktCtLfWuxGvMRNMYNg=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=XArUj/pEkXxGe0ZHks8xxm2zS3282F3nsR4ioMMAJ4ly1tXgWuHvimW+GNogAz+ZM w1kzwlGa43aT99RzGdfoJ2azu+ELfnY4pt6DNCdAESDX5tDTqe3hTY2JskdCZ9mvcp ZnIFulyo/xKk77zJcr/FHU5V8TkVrZ5QtQ/K4G/Q= X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c Received: from [192.168.178.124] ([91.61.52.132]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx101 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0Ldcv0-1gbABN2P9W-00ijcX; Mon, 22 Apr 2019 07:23:47 +0200 To: Heather Flanagan Cc: "rfc-markdown@ietf.org" , "xml2rfc@ietf.org" , "xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org" References:

<561D7097-7155-4DDD-8C5D-FA65663B5105@att.com> <280b0cf8-a7d0-0334-42fe-a9cd6e7966d7@gmx.de> <1DC0E053-509F-4531-9EAF-1A287FFA4ECD@att.com> <8cedc522-614c-039c-e550-8f5494ab040f@gmx.de> <308E0D17-7B84-4782-B17D-EE06EE80E6BE@rfc-editor.org> <3A0F4CD6-451F-44E2-9DA4-28235C638588@rfc-editor.org> From: Julian Reschke Message-ID: <77365280-3339-499c-db0e-626808ff31dd@gmx.de> Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2019 07:23:47 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <3A0F4CD6-451F-44E2-9DA4-28235C638588@rfc-editor.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:bHiR2E3GMbt9h8iQD9v6qggK/UxxYt+kGADiT/pWraE5VcxqBtk KiCy1sFOFzhsHnFYFag/IM6MDa0o6SySD0LZyJ1TOEDtzpx9O98nDN+0BCgCqxswAak+9eE MRTXwC3gGrpTXqg2iGTK0dKVi6At9ts+WLCaKolqqkJzFB69GlZIn4LFbtL18yzUzNC6K/k XmF7lPynMnzuWDjVj5B4A== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:u871MxrPUFE=:U8IMv3oKfVeFKetx5NWQFu YJP/8Zic7fzgc2mfVRgnUUPk2tInAu5HLi7SvN/GyeQvdnu7B8T4DzAwSlrttt4lLCNYcamNJ Zl+bimxZYGyZblMxtnISSV8IsM0j0ikI4s57AXGKhYaRJgUZC74RcsngfzVN3uVEkb/SJGXOY DVCS9AUGPuLhR5ia2Z0lh/PU3b/xNz15n0a57FM9jq0j0Rf5MI8modnOYY9Lc5yj6NjfPi02Q pGFOzeBcVNVEri52vrbZw4cR5Pp2dOdSXnjnlJomm68MiAw7BHsMSzMieGaEZQlDIgeb10ywd t43tTDjZ7diTud0bC+Jj4Tn7Heq3MMWqs+405tpIf7Uiyn/q/AFTrqUfLvj43vwaHxbf+vJwr qUY24R9jTEWvPO8Vh8Sf5ZY+g7CJAD573tLsUaZTPH3/ar5E4MYCOJ5myYCZzUKk8lQLxsq5Z qM6PriXg/cfDXw7UEccgIajxSq5pemp6ybG5iyQTdvNlyO0vYdd2cNpZNpIjzr+4Wv3vNXMTk g3qbPWWRGataJj5lExnYoeterxwJ9D7IFGT4cHt1DVCB26jRGVuUyzi8E44YzVTspU8PlcMLm RXRApxIQd6Wf2z9OQJz2+fEJ6HgaBp/IjhdQIFz7DxpGvIBvqY8jh2Hmt+SxwK6YAQqHci46F Pn0qokKgtTcZYNDENMy54dUxbw15bdXXrMQT2UxRTNBCyXvHs9DbQl9TbJdmwkP519SJGjkEE KSqAnFIGRlLkKJOMCliphtPWcW+9FPNAmswjL4G2fVOWcY/RqO8HjOqQsOb+jT0mV2sJo5Crc 5WJ/pSsIUc25aa7P62dv8AHDkVquMfI5da20dCOVlK7DDrbQ7xAC+l6wOyI9/QFW08i9dp21F v5sCa/Q4ZRvpBZYBDvbgewbNybz8V8WKy4nrkPUZbcUcRYBvGuc29s4PB3JEB1TWIQGqTRH4F BRhpDueYM8w== Archived-At: Subject: Re: [xml2rfc-dev] [xml2rfc] [Rfc-markdown] initials handling, was: New xml2rfc release: v2.22.3 X-BeenThere: xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion about particulars of xml2rfc V3 design, development and code." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2019 05:23:55 -0000 On 11.04.2019 17:06, Heather Flanagan wrote: > ... > And coming back to this: > > A longstanding principle for referencing RFCs is to make the reference > match what is on the front page of the RFC itself, over what information > is in any other location. This is something we should be clearer about > in the Style Guide, but it is a practice we=E2=80=99ve enforced for quit= e a long > time. If you're not planning a revision anytime soon, you may want to document this in detail at or file an erratum. > Changing the tool to match this longstanding practice is not ideal, but > it is expedient given that the proper way to handle this is an extensive > data cleanup of the citation library. I=E2=80=99ve asked the RPC to prio= ritize > getting documents published and format implementation over this kind of > data cleanup for now. > ... I still don't get this. Is there a well-defined algorithm to decide the detailed format? I guess so, otherwise it could not be placed into the formatter. In this case, please publish it. And if there is one, just get the files updated accordingly. (And yes, I volunteer, if the algorithm is clear). Best regards, Julian From nobody Mon Apr 22 07:35:41 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xml2rfc-dev@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xml2rfc-dev@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C945C1200A2; Mon, 22 Apr 2019 07:35:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g7mKLvYTfo7D; Mon, 22 Apr 2019 07:35:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.amsl.com (c8a.amsl.com [4.31.198.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C7CB812001B; Mon, 22 Apr 2019 07:35:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 357151C1E51; Mon, 22 Apr 2019 07:35:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com Received: from c8a.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (c8a.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NFZSMC5d_uVf; Mon, 22 Apr 2019 07:35:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.198.42.38] (c-71-231-216-10.hsd1.wa.comcast.net [71.231.216.10]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D61491C1C11; Mon, 22 Apr 2019 07:35:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2019 07:35:23 -0700 From: Heather Flanagan To: Julian Reschke Cc: "=?utf-8?Q?rfc-markdown=40ietf.org?=" , "=?utf-8?Q?xml2rfc=40ietf.org?=" , "=?utf-8?Q?xml2rfc-dev=40ietf.org?=" Message-ID: <2370a17d-b0e4-455e-8d9e-3d8ea13f79b6@Spark> In-Reply-To: <77365280-3339-499c-db0e-626808ff31dd@gmx.de> References:

<561D7097-7155-4DDD-8C5D-FA65663B5105@att.com> <280b0cf8-a7d0-0334-42fe-a9cd6e7966d7@gmx.de> <1DC0E053-509F-4531-9EAF-1A287FFA4ECD@att.com> <8cedc522-614c-039c-e550-8f5494ab040f@gmx.de> <308E0D17-7B84-4782-B17D-EE06EE80E6BE@rfc-editor.org> <3A0F4CD6-451F-44E2-9DA4-28235C638588@rfc-editor.org> <77365280-3339-499c-db0e-626808ff31dd@gmx.de> X-Readdle-Message-ID: 2370a17d-b0e4-455e-8d9e-3d8ea13f79b6@Spark MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="5cbdd130_c55abdf_3366" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [xml2rfc-dev] [xml2rfc] [Rfc-markdown] initials handling, was: New xml2rfc release: v2.22.3 X-BeenThere: xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion about particulars of xml2rfc V3 design, development and code." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2019 14:35:33 -0000 --5cbdd130_c55abdf_3366 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Apr 21, 2019, 10:23 PM -0700, Julian Reschke = , wrote: > On 11.04.2019 17:06, Heather =46lanagan wrote: > > ... > > And coming back to this: > > > > A longstanding principle for referencing R=46Cs is to make the refere= nce > > match what is on the front page of the R=46C itself, over what inform= ation > > is in any other location. This is something we should be clearer abou= t > > in the Style Guide, but it is a practice we=E2=80=99ve enforced for q= uite a long > > time. > > If you're not planning a revision anytime soon, you may want to documen= t > this in detail at or fil= e > an erratum. I agree - I=E2=80=99ll work with the RPC on updating the web portion of t= he style guide. > > > Changing the tool to match this longstanding practice is not ideal, b= ut > > it is expedient given that the proper way to handle this is an extens= ive > > data cleanup of the citation library. I=E2=80=99ve asked the RPC to p= rioritize > > getting documents published and format implementation over this kind = of > > data cleanup for now. > > ... > > I still don't get this. Is there a well-defined algorithm to decide the= > detailed format=3F I guess so, otherwise it could not be placed into th= e > formatter. In this case, please publish it. And if there is one, just > get the files updated accordingly. (And yes, I volunteer, i= f > the algorithm is clear). > > Ah, volunteering=21 I love that=21 Let me talk to Sandy and Alice to see = how best to move this forward. -Heather --5cbdd130_c55abdf_3366 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline

On Apr 21, 2019= , 10:23 PM -0700, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke=40gmx.de>, wrote:<= br />

On 11.04.2019 17:06, Heather =46= lanagan wrote:

...
And coming back to this:

A longstanding principle for referencing R=46Cs is to make the reference<= br /> match what is on the front page of the R=46C itself, over what informatio= n
is in any other location. This is something we should be clearer about in the Style Guide, but it is a practice we=E2=80=99ve enforced for quite= a long
time.

If you're not planning a revision anytime soon, you may want to document<= br /> this in detail at <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/> or= file
an erratum.&=23160;

I agree - I=E2=80=99ll work with the RPC on updating the web portion= of the style guide.&=23160;

Changing the tool to match thi= s longstanding practice is not ideal, but
it is expedient given that the proper way to handle this is an extensive<= br /> data cleanup of the citation library. I=E2=80=99ve asked the RPC to prior= itize
getting documents published and format implementation over this kind of data cleanup for now.
...

I still don't get this. Is there a well-defined algorithm to decide the detailed format=3F I guess so, otherwise it could not be placed into the<= br /> formatter. In this case, please publish it. And if there is one, just
get the <reference> files updated accordingly. (And yes, I voluntee= r, if
the algorithm is clear).

Ah, volunteering=21 I love that=21 Let me talk to Sandy and Alice to= see how best to move this forward.

-Heather

--5cbdd130_c55abdf_3366-- From nobody Mon Apr 22 11:31:19 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xml2rfc-dev@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: xml2rfc-dev@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFFC8120132; Mon, 22 Apr 2019 11:31:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=gmx.net Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UjihVyHS6VU7; Mon, 22 Apr 2019 11:31:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A3EC120092; Mon, 22 Apr 2019 11:31:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1555957871; bh=5a+DcDpt356q9GJUY6/FPpRDXTA8H3GCVdpQt0/8rDE=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=i28aPeafIRJGR4fiRgCgIv3FZUjwevG8Y03cF3MEPVex9xZjl/Y0Ngp3jJxhvNNpP Vij1XGHIOZTOltGAJZjk0aaDxXZlB3LApyUxN6ztqlflcDolprgLrWm0C7kFlT2KwG nKKUIRUwkpPj+e6QgIXPj0WDpfwNMpgt9/ci9TE8= X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c Received: from [192.168.178.124] ([91.61.52.132]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx103 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0LaoMe-1gYbeJ2K1g-00kRSw; Mon, 22 Apr 2019 20:31:11 +0200 To: Heather Flanagan Cc: "rfc-markdown@ietf.org" , "xml2rfc@ietf.org" , "xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org" References:

<561D7097-7155-4DDD-8C5D-FA65663B5105@att.com> <280b0cf8-a7d0-0334-42fe-a9cd6e7966d7@gmx.de> <1DC0E053-509F-4531-9EAF-1A287FFA4ECD@att.com> <8cedc522-614c-039c-e550-8f5494ab040f@gmx.de> <308E0D17-7B84-4782-B17D-EE06EE80E6BE@rfc-editor.org> <3A0F4CD6-451F-44E2-9DA4-28235C638588@rfc-editor.org> <77365280-3339-499c-db0e-626808ff31dd@gmx.de> <2370a17d-b0e4-455e-8d9e-3d8ea13f79b6@Spark> From: Julian Reschke Message-ID: <7663a236-9a4e-f8c3-dede-b52171dc63c9@gmx.de> Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2019 20:31:05 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <2370a17d-b0e4-455e-8d9e-3d8ea13f79b6@Spark> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:RjlkaWp8obMqPN0D7+4iLKuqe3MFexptmPMAqGAwFB3GES8t4to ye7msLrpegG/LLdh8ymr5uhqpB+dN+tJ9G1oyERRbz3WgnJnxfQCq7F47eokX87WBCk+IdF SKEOQ2RjE5i0d9M7VCKWiVxUpWHQR5F3OT1KsKoK9/jKjNMeGXjvl76EGNArMmuRd7O5di/ cdvNrJHH/U2Z9pvJu/u9A== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:/a6NW4MbVSA=:XzAX8Sa7m9bP6xpCa3SFsb mxe9h/x32j1IgXwj2l6I3UMdo+VtG+PdvJcdBYdV44p26IDFAYe3+MYpstISzwor9VWprHnk4 30kaxcWXS2FIXKKB3JgxctjyOJj3wdwU3f98n8Uw3pLdpdo8uwHw7+0095eI6iUiGc3M/mwC1 1xwJRYN8jTF2nUcjYNP8lUmw8glB6mwMrxELnOyz9zXYowgoS5Pq/iv2HtHSJnARhZWEp0PHV D0y768LQX4ApLD92aUxB+DFG1uBd+1FbotWv5YXqAiTXuvusTH7vtQKw8PYBqopVyr/bgI9RL 5iwn/IQFejKZW4HgzenHBOfLVYXH/rG/ry0rxd/R2NV+1SvdPkaOqy4EWqBJPc0MUOAlcmck7 L/mLksBU9LWP2YxJFfQQObqgznWnHMI9deM+Evoz/nzlQc3IpE75RVsaaTgsM5mhD+xoLW5CQ hUVD/x5kNVITqBN4OJPfxWt2DVIpppLKuQnKpuwE6dokzBCkMrFuHdXL8wIITZzUHcphUPQ/r LzQQy1Q5aAvFeDjXqMkJ3ae48rzvYxiKU0fkYCsb1nKz6tuHqYBnzFs1btCLP4H1Y23GVrTDZ Y+gWEafjkjwzYkOy5atciJv4NFl4zb3Xckt2XK5z2H9vcamHuQEyHxDL7Ozf7ltbIbOWu5GMr o3wRCRDydz++AKTWNC3M1jvCiBIFDF2t47ShEEwOtaKThF1hhMQJFQ3ZU7vvkLIuiGIaQ7Qmy U4eO0o+Sy4i2TK+a7PAaJPIt+nplbPdW7PMSfewiL31/4+q56kgXDl2Kf24LeJ63SRNj/5rhR 5On3cTOQqyXOsWfsrbhfJxfNAH5gYSJcSQ0W+ometbBEOsyWROH5+RLwlzmXpWLPlD7PKvCtc xEvDUaaqO8n9yA9/HL6azLdJmulipvHY/LlXSQA5HJTfvN8P8n9OG0vcxpK8zZcEj+7CQ6oaG xBY59Hj/wqw== Archived-At: Subject: Re: [xml2rfc-dev] [xml2rfc] [Rfc-markdown] initials handling, was: New xml2rfc release: v2.22.3 X-BeenThere: xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion about particulars of xml2rfc V3 design, development and code." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2019 18:31:18 -0000 On 22.04.2019 16:35, Heather Flanagan wrote: > On Apr 21, 2019, 10:23 PM -0700, Julian Reschke , > wrote: >> On 11.04.2019 17:06, Heather Flanagan wrote: >>> ... >>> And coming back to this: >>> >>> A longstanding principle for referencing RFCs is to make the reference >>> match what is on the front page of the RFC itself, over what informati= on >>> is in any other location. This is something we should be clearer about >>> in the Style Guide, but it is a practice we=E2=80=99ve enforced for qu= ite a long >>> time. >> >> If you're not planning a revision anytime soon, you may want to documen= t >> this in detail at or fil= e >> an erratum. > > I agree - I=E2=80=99ll work with the RPC on updating the web portion of = the > style guide. > >> >>> Changing the tool to match this longstanding practice is not ideal, bu= t >>> it is expedient given that the proper way to handle this is an extensi= ve >>> data cleanup of the citation library. I=E2=80=99ve asked the RPC to pr= ioritize >>> getting documents published and format implementation over this kind o= f >>> data cleanup for now. >>> ... >> >> I still don't get this. Is there a well-defined algorithm to decide the >> detailed format? I guess so, otherwise it could not be placed into the >> formatter. In this case, please publish it. And if there is one, just >> get the files updated accordingly. (And yes, I volunteer, i= f >> the algorithm is clear). >> >> > > Ah, volunteering! I love that! Let me talk to Sandy and Alice to see how > best to move this forward. > ... Can we start with a precise problem statement? How exactly is the rule for initials for author names different in these ancient RFCs? Best regards, Julian