Subject: Re: [rfc-i] [xml2rfc] use of sourcecode type

From: "John R Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 21 Jul 2020 17:00:41 -0400

In article <[email-masked]> you write:
>I agree that we should have some agreed upon way to do this.
>
>Perhaps a "+xyz" suffix, with some agreed up xyz values.

Sure, we can keep a list of conventionally used tags.

>A problem I have with both name and type is that they are invisible in
>the human readable formats. They provide semantic information that may
>be of interest to a reader. Perhaps they could be available in html via
>a popup?

We could do that but it doesn't seem like a very good idea, since there's no popups
in the text or PDF versions.  If the semantics of a code sample are important, the surrounding
text should say something about it.

>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/sourcecode-types.txt
>>
>> (Ha, this doesn’t even have “cddl” in it; I’m not sure how this is updated and whether
>there shouldn’t really be an IANA registry for these.)

This is a local convention with the IETF that goes in the RFC style
guide. IANA registries are for things that interoperate on the global
internet.

R's,
John

_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest