Julian,
I understand the reasoning and those of us who use the
submission system (and XML2RFC, etc.) frequently have long ago
gotten used to the conventions. However, it seems to me that
having xml2rfc enforce those conventions (e.g., by generating a
warning message when "draft-foo-bar.txt" appears rather than
"draft-foo-bar-00" would be rather easy. Compared to that and
while I'm sure it is unintentional, the present situation
somewhat resembles a hazing process of torturing newcomers until
they eventually figure things out, get enough advice and/or
abuse, and thread their way through sufficient documents to be
considered worthy to join the club.
I think we should be able to do at least a little bit better,
don't you?
best,
john
--On Friday, June 15, 2018 14:23 +0200 Alexandre Petrescu
<alexandre.petrescu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> Le 15/06/2018 à 11:48, Julian Reschke a écrit :
>> On 2018-06-15 11:01, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
>>> ...
>>> Yes, from an abstract layer.
>>>
>>> But from a mundane point of view:
>>>
>>> Among 'draft-person.txt' and 'draft-person'
>>> which one is a 'full draft name'?
>>> ...
>>
>> See
>> <https://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc7749.html#element.rfc.a
>> ttribute.docName>.
>
> Please, if you want feedback from me, do not point me to URLs.
> URLs take time to click, and are invisible after some time
> whereas the message is still visible.
>
> Better - paste the content here, so I can reply to it.
>
> Of course, you are free to walk me back and forth between all
> sites of the Internet and wikipedia, and I will take advantage
> of that walking back and forth to maybe check whether it is
> secure, or whether it is IPv6 or just IPv4, or others.
>
> But if we want to stay to the point, and if we are open to
> remarks and difficulties, and if we want to be kind to the
> humble submitter, then we listen.
>
> That website says:
>> 2.33.3. "docName" Attribute
>>
>> For Internet-Drafts, this specifies the draft name (which
>> appears below the title).
>>
>> A processor should give an error if both the "docName" and
>> "number" attributes are given in the <rfc> element.
>>
>> Note that the file extension is not part of the draft
>
> How comes a file extension is not part of the draft?
>
> Maybe it is not part of the draft _name_?
>
> Nobody expects a file extension to be part of the draft
> (contents of that draft.)
>
> Alex
>
> , so in general it should end with the current draft number
> ("-", plus two digits).
>>
>> Furthermore, it is good practice to disambiguate current
>> editor copies from submitted drafts (for instance, by
>> replacing the draft number with the string "latest").
>>
>> See Section 7 of [IDGUIDE] for further information.
>
>
>>
>>
>> Best regards, Julian
>>
>
