Subject: [rfc-i] Yet another RFCXMLv3 grammar bug

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2021 12:22:26 +0100

https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/xml2rfc-doc-3.11.1.html#name-bcp14-2

This element can be a child element of <annotation>, <blockquote>, <dd>, <dt>, <em>, <li>, <name>, <refcontent>, <strong>, <sub>, <sup>, <t>, <td>, <th>, and <tt>.

… but not cref.

This means I cannot discuss BCP14 keywords in editorial notes.

(No, leaving off the BCP14 is not an option, a MUST NOT is a MUST NOT.
But of course I can upgrade the spelling in the cref to mUsT NoT.)

I stick with my general comment that tweaking the individual content models to reflect some imagined policy (or should I say “policy that reflects lack of imagination”) is the wrong way to do this.  If something is allowed at the span level anywhere, it MUST be allowed everywhere at the span level.
(This also should evaporate most of the noise in the grammar.)

Grüße, Carsten

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

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2021 11:14:58 -0700

> (This also should evaporate most of the noise in the grammar.)

Issue 200 raises its head again:

https://github.com/rfc-format/draft-iab-xml2rfc-v3-bis/issues/200

I will work on this in the next few weeks.

Peter