Subject: [rfc-i] Handling of SeriesInfo in v3

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2019 13:13:01 -0500

[My apologies if this is going back over previous issues. However, it seems
to me that it is probably useful to have a capture of all the issues that
are raised as I convert my tools to the new format.]

It appears Henrik is proposing some overdue changes in the handling of
SeriesInfo in v3.1. Specifically the list SeriesInfo is replaced by:

    attribute category { "std" | "bcp" | "info" | "exp" | "historic" }?,
    attribute submissionType {
      "IETF" | "IAB" | "IRTF" | "independent"

My tool is using a superset of the v2/v3 schemas so this isn't actually
saving me time but this is clearly the way forward.

What I am not sure about is the handling of DOI and ISSNs in the new
schema. There doesn't seem to be any slots for these. RFC8659.xml specifies
these as link elements which seem to be deprecated.

  <link href="
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lamps-rfc6844bis-07"
rel="prev"/>
  <link href="https://dx.doi.org/10.17487/rfc8659" rel="alternate"/>
  <link href="urn:issn:2070-1721" rel="alternate"/>

The DOI is on the RFC-editor page but does not appear in the txt or html
version of the RFC. Is this intentional? The DOI can be inferred from the
name of the rfc after all and the ISSN is constant because it is the number
of the RFC series, not the document in the series.

So as things stand, I plan to simply ignore the <links> entries completely
and simply populate the ISSN field with the constant 2070-1721. This seems
to be have the v3+ schema sees things.

What I have not fully worked out yet is the set of output modes for the
tool. The input modes are somewhat easier as they can be permissive, the
XML schema I use is a superset of v2, v3 and v3+

The output modes I see being useful are:

Publication: html, txt, xml.vtool
Editing: word, md, xml.vtool

Where  xml.vtool is the latest version of the xml2rfc spec accepted by the
editing tools.

The difference between Publication and Editing is in the treatment of
included files, references, etc. The Publication versions have all the data
consolidated into a single file. The editing versions have the processing
instructions to include external files. Similarly, the Publication versions
have references, section ids, etc. translated to the publication versions
while the Editing versions are as specified by the user.

The aim here is to be able to support groups where the different authors
prefer to use different tools. So we might have one person using ooxml
(i.e. word) another using markdown and a third using raw xml. Being able to
translate from one format to another allows everyone to work in the tool
they prefer.
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest