wayne wrote:
[2234bis]
determine if I need to update any of the ABNF because of it.
Double checking the SPF-ABNF is always okay, but AFAIK the
differences between 2234 and 2234bis are only relevant for
developers of ABNF-check tools, the ABNF-ABNF, and of course
the high standards of Bruce Lilly.
If you find anything in 2234is with an effect on the SPF-ABNF
please tell me, I'd be very interested.
my version of xml2rfc was several months old
Oops, I didn't know that you've installed it. I used the Web
interface for my two tests (SPF op= and the A. Mouse example).
*YOU KNEW ABOUT IT*! grumble, grumble, grumble.
I've never tested xml2rfc on your xml. The only problem I'm
aware of are obscure symbolic character references like hellip
or for umlauted characters.
And an oddity with <vspace BlankLines="1" /> in tables, but as
far as I know that's no new 1.29 feature. So what problem did
you have with xml2rfc 1.29, the ToC ?
I'm going to have to demand that the spf council double what
they are paying me.
Good idea, I'll mention it in my next honorary invoices. Not
sure to whom I'd send it, the SPF Council has no mail address,
otherwise I'd inform them when I find something like Andy's
"spf-considerations". I hate Cc: orgies.
Bye, Frank