Joe Touch schrieb:
...
Sure - but if I cite an I-D, and have only the name of the I-D in the
XML source, but all the references' details are in the xml2rfc support
files, I need to archive them.
...
Correct. That's one of the reasons not to do that (that is, copy the
reference into the document).
Those files change as I-Ds come out. While I can enter that info into
the doc, most people do not.
Correct. We need to educate them. For instance, once we get there the
RFC Editor could refuse to accept documents like these.
And I'm worried about changes to XML that render the result
uncompilable, not minor text formatting changes. See the changes to 2629
(sometimes referred to as 2629bis, although no I-D has been issued - and
we're currently using this 'bis' version) noted on the xml2rfc pages.
What happens when a real 'bis' WG is created? will the current changes
be supported into the future or not?
Do you have any evidence of non-backwards compatible changes that
occurred in the past?
Best regards, Julian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf