On 03/18/2010 01:52 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 18.03.2010 21:41, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: >> On 03/18/2010 09:37 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: >>> And how are numbered lists a problem? >> >> I thought it was a pain because I got comments referring to <x> and the >> file I edited contained no <x>. xml2rfc generated numbers, people used >> them to me, I didn't see them in the source. >> >> In general I think the RFC format should use author-visible numbers in >> the cases where those numbers are used in email, and might benefit from >> being unchanged in the next revision of the RFC: Sections, list items. >> Not references, people don't often refer to those by number in email. > > It would be a simple exercise to write a tool that augments the source > with the generated section/list item numbers. > > Damn, now I have to write it :-) This is another proof that we need to define a subset of rfc2629-bis for the canonical XML source (no include; day/month attribute mandatory; figures, tables and lists numbered[1]. etc...), so the XML source submitted can be used to generate the various formats people want. -- Marc Petit-Huguenin Personal email: marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Professional email: petithug@xxxxxxx Blog: http://blog.marc.petit-huguenin.org _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf