On 07.10.2019 22:58, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 07.10.2019 22:00, Heather Flanagan wrote:
Wow, everyone. We did it!
Thank you all for years and years of effort in getting us to this
point. RFC 8651 is now the first RFC to be published in the v3 format.
As those of you on the xml2rfc list know, there are still heated
discussions underway about some aspects of the XML vocabulary. Getting
the -bis documents out to capture the reality of the v3 format is
critically important. That is in the top 3 priorities for me as I wrap
up my time as RSE (the other two are operational transition items and
the RFC Model process discussion).
I particularly want to thank the RPC staff. They have worked
incredibly hard to fill the roles of expert copyeditors, quality
assurance engineers, and key stakeholders throughout the seven years
(and counting) of the RFC format project. This is an amazing team.
Thank you.
Heather Flanagan, RSE
...
So, as far as I can tell, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8651.xml> -
which is supposed to be the canonical format - does not conform to the
V3 grammar (neither the one from RFC 7991, nor what's in the unpublished
RFC 7991bis):
...
Also, running the XML through an alternative processor (rfc2629.xslt)
yields:
ERROR: user-supplied boilerplate differs from auto-generated boilerplate (inserting auto-generated) (at line 6)
....which is no surprise as the generated TOC is contained in the
<boilerplate> element, where it has no reason to be.
I understand that the V3 format is work-in-progress, but whatever the
state is, there should be at least one version of the format's grammar
that the published XML conforms to.
Best regards, Julian
