Subject: [Xml-sg-cmt] requests re: XML source files

From: Alice Russo <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 16:46:29 -0800

Hi CMT,

For your awareness, below are requests re: the application of the XML vocabulary in recent documents.  Perhaps useful to discuss on the next call (Jan 31). To summarize:

1- Author doesn't want the <xref> targets that they customized to be replaced by standardized targets and <displayref> (and citation library xi:includes, by extension) even though the output appears the same.
RFCs-to-be 9110-9112
Rationale given: The author wants the href in the rendered output to use the custom name (#URI vs. #RFC3986); the author doesn't like the xref targets being changed throughout because it makes the source diffs too noisy in the repository that the author is maintaining for the document.
Outcome: changed per author's request.

2- Author doesn't want the contributors in <contact> because it doesn't match past output.
RFC-to-be 9147
Related thread on tools-discuss (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-discuss/5HbO_EjBpNvbchBpZqvBbaduEdM/) requests a change to the text rendering.

3- Author doesn't want their postal address in the typical structure. (They prefer all <postalLine>, which was used in the XML submitted.)
RFCs-to-be 9110-9112
Rationale given: The author thought the typical postal address structure had been deprecated. 
Outcome: changed per author's request. These documents will be exceptions until this change is documented somewhere.
(Previous thread on this w/ open question re: <country>: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/xml-sg-cmt/1WQjyooMHp1riVISXNplf_0x4U0/)

4- Author doesn't want definition lists in <dl>; author wants them in <ul>.
RFC-to-be 9180
Rationale: more clear with bullet points.

As Jean pointed out to me, some of the issues above can be seen as "edit noise" issues rather than vocabulary issues, in that the overall rationale for these requests is to roll back edits in order to reduce the number of changes in diffs in the documents' respective repos. 

A suggestion - RPC continues to work on 'recommended practices for applying the XML vocabulary' (separate from the definitions in 7991bis), with the goals of improving efficiency and having authors + RPC referring to the same guidelines.

Thanks,
Alice