On Jul 11, 2019, at 11:20 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@xxxxxx> wrote: > If one says "normative", it's normative, no? In terms of process, yes. But I might refer to it informatively and normatively in the same document, and that could be marked properly in the XML if we cared. I don’t think it’s very important, but if you add the ability to mark a reference normative, you either have to allow this or forbid it, and if you allow it, I think this is the right way to treat it. I’d prefer to allow it—I think it’s useful. The downside is that it requires more care, and that would be a good reason to forbid it. :) >> It would also be nice if the publication date could default to “today” >> and if the draft number could be determined automatically based on what >> is most recent… > > It already does default to "today", unless I'm missing something. Oh cool. Either I didn’t think to just leave the date tag empty, as Carsten suggests, or this was added at some point after I started using xml2rfc. Of course, if the XML is normative, isn’t it the case that the published XML has to have a date tag that contains the publication date? > Calculating the draft number *could* be done at submission time; I > wouldn't want to do it always, because then, if the last was "01", the > generated one will say "02" - even if it never gets submitted. Sure, but that’s effectively what happens anyway, isn’t it? The difference is that I might generate several -01s after -01 is published, or I might generate several -02s before -02 is published, depending on my habit. This would eliminate that variability. It’s always possible to generate a -02 that’s not the published -02, so I think making this automatic doesn’ t make the situation any worse, and does increase usability.
