On 11.07.2019 17:30, Ted Lemon wrote:
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?
In RFCs, yes. Elsewhere? Would need to be decided.
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.
I do not disagree; it's just a question when this should happen.
Best regards, Julian
