Subject: [Xml-sg-cmt] References again

From: "John R Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 27 Jul 2021 12:12:56 -0400

I added a few more lines to my script to count the reference structures in 
published RFCs.  The first () list is the top level under <back>, the 
second () list is the second level.

It seems unfortunate that the grammar allows all five of these.  If it 
were up to me, I'd say you only get a single References section with 
Normative and Informative under that if you need both, but if we do that, 
we'll have to 
adjust some of the published XML.

362 (('References',), ('Normative References', 'Informative References'))

6 (('Normative References', 'Informative References'), ())

24 (('Informative References',), ())
20 (('Normative References',), ())

1 (('References',), ('Informative References',))

1 (('References',), ('Normative References', 'Informational References'))

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2021 16:41:00 -0500

Remember that other bodies are using our format. To the extent it's not 
really causing us pain to leave flexibility, we shouldn't take it away. 
The place we ended at the last conversation didn't seem wrong to me.

RjS

On 7/27/21 11:12 AM, John R Levine wrote:
> I added a few more lines to my script to count the reference 
> structures in published RFCs.  The first () list is the top level 
> under <back>, the second () list is the second level.
>
> Normative and Informative under that if you need both, but if we do 
> that, we'll have to adjust some of the published XML.
>

---

From: "John R Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 27 Jul 2021 17:45:56 -0400

> really causing us pain to leave flexibility, we shouldn't take it away. The 
> place we ended at the last conversation didn't seem wrong to me.

Just out of nosiness, who else is using xml v3?

>> It seems unfortunate that the grammar allows all five of these. If it were 
>> up to me, I'd say you only get a single References section with Normative 
>> and Informative under that if you need both, but if we do that, we'll have 
>> to adjust some of the published XML.
>> 

Regards,
John Levine, [email-masked], Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2021 17:04:14 -0500

On 7/27/21 4:45 PM, John R Levine wrote:
>> Remember that other bodies are using our format. To the extent it's 
>> not really causing us pain to leave flexibility, we shouldn't take it 
>> away. The place we ended at the last conversation didn't seem wrong 
>> to me.
>

Not the right question right now - it was who is using rfc xml and 
can/will they make the transition to v3, and do they _care_ about the 
xml part? What they care about typically is the ability to produce 
something in roughly Internet-Draft format - they _may_ be doing that 
with rfc xml and they might be doing it with kramdown and only care 
about the .txt (!) output.

I haven't kept a list of these when I've run across them, but the set is 
non-empty - I'll see what I can back out of email history.

>>> It seems unfortunate that the grammar allows all five of these. If 
>>> it were up to me, I'd say you only get a single References section 
>>> with Normative and Informative under that if you need both, but if 
>>> we do that, we'll have to adjust some of the published XML.
>>>