Subject: [xml2rfc] xml2rfc from the command line
From: [email-masked] (Florian Weimer)
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 17:57:29 +0200

Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]> writes:

> I would like to have the same type of shortcut from emacs for xml2rfc,
> but I would need to know how to call the program from the command line
> (providing input and output files). How could I do it?

NAME
       xml2rfc - format RFCs using XML markup

SYNOPSIS
       xml2rfc source
       xml2rfc source output.txt
       xml2rfc source output.html
       xml2rfc source output.nr
       xml2rfc

DESCRIPTION
       xml2rfc  converts an XML document using the DTD describe in RFC 2629 to
       plain text, nroff or HTML format.

       When invoked with a single argument, xml2rfc converts the given  source
       file  to  text  format  and writes the result to a file having the same
       basename and the extension .txt.  Otherwise, the output format is  con-
       trolled  by the extension of the output file (given in the second argu-
       ment).

       When xml2rfc is invoked with no arguments, and the DISPLAY  environment
       variable is set, the user can interactively choose the file to convert.

ENVIRONMENT VARIABLES
       The following environment variables are processed by xml2rfc:

       DISPLAY
              This environment variable is used to locate an X11 display.

SEE ALSO
       RFC 2629

From: [email-masked] (Gonzalo Camarillo)
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 15:03:04 +0300
Subject: [xml2rfc] xml2rfc from the command line
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

Hi,

so far, I have been writing my drafts using Latex. Today, I decided to 
move to xml2rfc, so I have just installed it. One quick question:

When I edit a draft in latex format in emacs, I have a shortcut (C-c 
C-F) to build the document (the shortcut acutally does "latex 
name_of_the_draft.tex"). I have also a short that does "bibtex 
name_of_the_draft".

I would like to have the same type of shortcut from emacs for xml2rfc, 
but I would need to know how to call the program from the command line 
(providing input and output files). How could I do it?

Thanks,

Gonzalo

From: [email-masked] (Marshall Rose)
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 11:01:59 -0700
Subject: [xml2rfc] test message
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

please do not reply.

/mtr

From: [email-masked] (Marshall Rose)
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 18:41:13 -0700
Subject: [xml2rfc] page breaks in figures
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]>
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

> I'm finding that small figures, even four or five lines, are falling
> on page breaks using version 1.20.  My understanding is that this
> isn't supposed to happen.  Is anyone else observing this?

hi. send me a file with the problem so i can take a look at it.

thanks,

/mtr

From: [email-masked] (Randy Bush)
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 17:41:05 -0700
Subject: [xml2rfc] xrefs using the online citation library
References: <[email-masked]>
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

> Can someone point me to instructions on how to use the online RFC, ID,
> etc, citation library?  I'm using the template code from sample.xml
> but don't really know what I'm doing. :)

    cd /usr/home/randy/refs/rfc
    wget -r -l 1 -A .xml -nd -nc http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/

    cd ../id
    wget -r -l 1 -A .xml -nd -nc http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/

then, in .xml2rfc.rc

    global env tcl_platform

    if {![string compare $tcl_platform(platform) windows]} {
	set sep ";"
    } else {
	set sep ":"
    }

    if {[catch { set env(XML_LIBRARY) } library]} {
	set library ""
	append library $sep~/refs/id
	append library $sep~/refs/rfc
    }

    set nativeD [file nativename $inputD]
    if {[lsearch [split $library $sep] $nativeD] < 0} {
	set library "$nativeD$sep$library"
    }

    set env(XML_LIBRARY) $library

then, in your document

    <t>6to4 <xref target="RFC3056"></xref> provides a mechanism for IPv6

and

    <t>6to4 and DNS <xref target="I-D.moore-6to4-dns"></xref>

and

    <back>
    <references title='Normative References'>
	<?rfc include="reference.RFC.3056" ?>
	</references>
    <references title='Informative References'>
	<?rfc include="reference.I-D.moore-6to4-dns" ?>
	</references>
    </back>
    </rfc>

randy

From: [email-masked] (Aaron Falk)
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 17:13:24 -0700
Subject: [xml2rfc] xrefs using the online citation library
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

Hi-

Can someone point me to instructions on how to use the online RFC, ID,
etc, citation library?  I'm using the template code from sample.xml
but don't really know what I'm doing. :)

--aaron

From: [email-masked] (Aaron Falk)
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 17:10:56 -0700
Subject: [xml2rfc] page breaks in figures
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

Hi-

I'm finding that small figures, even four or five lines, are falling
on page breaks using version 1.20.  My understanding is that this
isn't supposed to happen.  Is anyone else observing this?

--aaron

From: [email-masked] (Clive D.W. Feather)
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 17:09:55 +0100
Subject: [xml2rfc] Address details
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

Why am I limited (in 1.20) to one email, one phone, and one facsimile
element? I may well want to provide more than one.

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather  | Work:  <[email-masked]>   | Tel:    +44 20 8495 6138
Internet Expert     | Home:  <[email-masked]>  | *** NOTE CHANGE ***
Demon Internet      | WWW: http://www.davros.org | Fax:    +44 870 051 9937
Thus plc            |                            | Mobile: +44 7973 377646

From: [email-masked] (Elwyn Davies)
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 13:19:34 +0100
Subject: [xml2rfc] Re: Bug in reference author output.
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C36002.D2A95B42
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

Well, that will teach me to apply logic to typographical matters.  I seem to
have got a bit carried away researching this but there are a couple of
interesting possibilities for community resources embedded lower down.

Having looked into this a bit, I am truly amazed by the number of different
'systems' for formatting citations and references that have been designed
and documented in considerable rigour.  All, it seems, also have the caveat
that most universities, journals and publishers have a house style.

It appears the RFC Editor (following in the steps of the illustrious Postel)
is using a variant of the Vancouver system, but so far as I can see, the
scheme of distinguishing the last author of multiple authors by using
'<initials> <surname>' is unique.  I also think it is bizarre, and that's
what immediately made me think it was a bug!  The relatively few examples of
multiple authors in the tutorials (eg.
http://infoskills.port.ac.uk/refcite/refcite.htm,
http://www.wisc.edu/writetest/Handbook/DocChi_WC_book.html) show one of
- ((<firstname> <other initials>)|<initials>) <surname> for all authors,
- <surname>(,?) <initials>' for all authors, or 
- <surname>(,?) <initials>' for the first and '<initials> <surname>' for all
others
with up to six authors spelled out and 'et al' appended for more than six.
The logic for the <surname> first for, at least, the first author presumably
being that the Vancouver system calls for references to be in alphabetical
order of first author surname.

The reference House Style for RFCs is enshrined in RFC2223 (by example in
the references section), and is, indeed, exactly as Marshall says - although
the case is built on exactly one example in Reference [5] where 'Li, T.' is
the second author of three.  I would doubt if one in a hundred ID/RFC
authors has noticed this since it is not spelt out in the text - we all know
how references are done, don't we;-).  The predecessor of RFC 2223 (RFC1543)
was more unhelpful, in that it contained the same definition by example but
gave only a single example, with a single author! I note that there is
currently no requirement for references to be ordered in any particular way
- presumably this was not thought essential given that most RFCs only
contain a handful of references. 

Incidentally, the only reason I came up against this, is that I have been
writing a tool to reverse engineer the XML from a basic ASCII draft.  I was
helping to convert an IRTF draft with 43 references in it and found that I
and my co-authors had conspired to format the references in just about every
possible convolution of minor deviations from the standard form, but the
human brain is such a forgiving syntax analyser that it not only manages to
extract the correct semantics but doesn't make the slightest complaint about
the random formatting.  I managed to create enough heuristics to get a good
automated result, but it will be interesting to try it on other docs.

[BTW - I also note that the policy was not applied consistently even around
the time that RFC2223 was published - RFC refs tend to be in the 'approved'
format, but other refs follow completely different strategies - see RFC2224
[Sandberg] and many of the refs in RFC2227.  The format seems to have crept
into use around RFC1144 - Marshall may even have been responsible for it;-).
I also looked at one RFC I was involved in (2475) and that is also
inconsistent. Sampling of more recent RFCs also reveals greater but by no
means total consistency, ***except for refs to other RFCs***, eg. ref [2] in
RFC3002, all the non-RFC refs in RFC3208, most of the refs in RFC3309, one
in RFC3312 - Do I detect that the RFC Editor has a handy library of RFC
reference boiler plate? - If so I would be happy to convert it to XML and
publish it as a useful resource for draft/RFC authors. Another thought along
these lines - a database of Author description blocks would save a lot of
tedious creation.]

This would all be moot if we were able to persuade everybody to use the
xml2rfc XML format, but it would still be a good idea to spell out the
intention in any future revision of RFC2223 -  it might make a bit less work
for the RFC Editor. It would also help to provide examples of references to
documents that are not RFCs and codify what is supposed to happen with URIs
now that these are commonplace.

Regards,
Elwyn

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott W Brim [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 10 August 2003 02:13
> To: John C Klensin
> Cc: Marshall Rose; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Re: Bug in reference author output.
> 
> 
> On Sat, Aug 09, 2003 06:37:06PM -0400, John C Klensin allegedly wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > --On Saturday, 09 August, 2003 15:24 -0700 Marshall Rose 
> > <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > 
> > >> Actually, if Elwyn correctly reported this, it may be a
> > >> problem.  The "official RFC style" is
> > >>
> > >> 	<surname>, <initials> For the first-listed author, and
> > >> 	then <initials> <surname> for all of the others.
> > >
> > > hmmm... here are all the references from rfc3576 with more
> > > than two listed authors:
> > >
> > >    [RFC2104]      Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M. and R. Canetti,
> > > "HMAC:                   Keyed-Hashing for Message
> > > Authentication", RFC 2104,                   February 1997.
> > >...
> > > i think your interpretation of the rule is wrong (or, if not,
> > > then the rfc editor is interpretting it differently).
> > 
> > I stand corrected.  This form is, IMO, bizarre (unlike what I 
> > thought the rule was, which I can rationalize).  But it is 
> > clearly the form the RFC Editor has been using (and correcting 
> > my documents to over the years without my noticing).
> 
> My age-old knowledge of correct citation format was what John 
> originally
> said -- only the first author has surname first.  The above format is
> bizarre to me as well.  What's the point?  (I wonder what the new
> Chicago Manual of Style says.)  I think xml2rfc should do the right
> thing (i.e. what we say), and we'll fix what RFC Editor says.
> 
> ..swb
> _______________________________________________
> xml2rfc mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://lists.xml.resource.org/mailman/listinfo/xml2rfc
> 

------_=_NextPart_001_01C36002.D2A95B42
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.5.2656.31">
<TITLE>RE: [xml2rfc] Re: Bug in reference author output.</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Well, that will teach me to apply logic to =
typographical matters.&nbsp; I seem to have got a bit carried away =
researching this but there are a couple of interesting possibilities =
for community resources embedded lower down.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Having looked into this a bit, I am truly amazed by =
the number of different 'systems' for formatting citations and =
references that have been designed and documented in considerable =
rigour.&nbsp; All, it seems, also have the caveat that most =
universities, journals and publishers have a house style.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>It appears the RFC Editor (following in the steps of =
the illustrious Postel) is using a variant of the Vancouver system, but =
so far as I can see, the scheme of distinguishing the last author of =
multiple authors by using '&lt;initials&gt; &lt;surname&gt;' is =
unique.&nbsp; I also think it is bizarre, and that's what immediately =
made me think it was a bug!&nbsp; The relatively few examples of =
multiple authors in the tutorials (eg. <A =
HREF=3D"http://infoskills.port.ac.uk/refcite/refcite.htm" =
TARGET=3D"_blank">http://infoskills.port.ac.uk/refcite/refcite.htm</A>, =
<A HREF=3D"http://www.wisc.edu/writetest/Handbook/DocChi_WC_book.html" =
TARGET=3D"_blank">http://www.wisc.edu/writetest/Handbook/DocChi_WC_book.=
html</A>) show one of</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>- ((&lt;firstname&gt; &lt;other =
initials&gt;)|&lt;initials&gt;) &lt;surname&gt; for all authors,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>- &lt;surname&gt;(,?) &lt;initials&gt;' for all =
authors, or </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>- &lt;surname&gt;(,?) &lt;initials&gt;' for the =
first and '&lt;initials&gt; &lt;surname&gt;' for all others</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>with up to six authors spelled out and 'et al' =
appended for more than six.&nbsp; The logic for the &lt;surname&gt; =
first for, at least, the first author presumably being that the =
Vancouver system calls for references to be in alphabetical order of =
first author surname.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>The reference House Style for RFCs is enshrined in =
RFC2223 (by example in the references section), and is, indeed, exactly =
as Marshall says - although the case is built on exactly one example in =
Reference [5] where 'Li, T.' is the second author of three.&nbsp; I =
would doubt if one in a hundred ID/RFC authors has noticed this since =
it is not spelt out in the text - we all know how references are done, =
don't we;-).&nbsp; The predecessor of RFC 2223 (RFC1543) was more =
unhelpful, in that it contained the same definition by example but gave =
only a single example, with a single author! I note that there is =
currently no requirement for references to be ordered in any particular =
way - presumably this was not thought essential given that most RFCs =
only contain a handful of references. </FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Incidentally, the only reason I came up against this, =
is that I have been writing a tool to reverse engineer the XML from a =
basic ASCII draft.&nbsp; I was helping to convert an IRTF draft with 43 =
references in it and found that I and my co-authors had conspired to =
format the references in just about every possible convolution of minor =
deviations from the standard form, but the human brain is such a =
forgiving syntax analyser that it not only manages to extract the =
correct semantics but doesn't make the slightest complaint about the =
random formatting.&nbsp; I managed to create enough heuristics to get a =
good automated result, but it will be interesting to try it on other =
docs.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>[BTW - I also note that the policy was not applied =
consistently even around the time that RFC2223 was published - RFC refs =
tend to be in the 'approved' format, but other refs follow completely =
different strategies - see RFC2224 [Sandberg] and many of the refs in =
RFC2227.&nbsp; The format seems to have crept into use around RFC1144 - =
Marshall may even have been responsible for it;-). I also looked at one =
RFC I was involved in (2475) and that is also inconsistent. Sampling of =
more recent RFCs also reveals greater but by no means total =
consistency, ***except for refs to other RFCs***, eg. ref [2] in =
RFC3002, all the non-RFC refs in RFC3208, most of the refs in RFC3309, =
one in RFC3312 - Do I detect that the RFC Editor has a handy library of =
RFC reference boiler plate? - If so I would be happy to convert it to =
XML and publish it as a useful resource for draft/RFC authors. Another =
thought along these lines - a database of Author description blocks =
would save a lot of tedious creation.]</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>This would all be moot if we were able to persuade =
everybody to use the xml2rfc XML format, but it would still be a good =
idea to spell out the intention in any future revision of RFC2223 =
-&nbsp; it might make a bit less work for the RFC Editor. It would also =
help to provide examples of references to documents that are not RFCs =
and codify what is supposed to happen with URIs now that these are =
commonplace.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Regards,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Elwyn</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; -----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; From: Scott W Brim [<A =
HREF=3D"mailto:[email-masked]">mailto:[email-masked]</A>]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Sent: 10 August 2003 02:13</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; To: John C Klensin</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Cc: Marshall Rose; =
[email-masked]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Re: Bug in reference =
author output.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; On Sat, Aug 09, 2003 06:37:06PM -0400, John C =
Klensin allegedly wrote:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; --On Saturday, 09 August, 2003 15:24 -0700 =
Marshall Rose </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; =
&lt;[email-masked]&gt; wrote:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt; Actually, if Elwyn correctly =
reported this, it may be a</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt; problem.&nbsp; The &quot;official =
RFC style&quot; is</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt;&nbsp; &lt;surname&gt;, =
&lt;initials&gt; For the first-listed author, and</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt;&nbsp; then &lt;initials&gt; =
&lt;surname&gt; for all of the others.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; &gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; &gt; hmmm... here are all the references =
from rfc3576 with more</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; &gt; than two listed authors:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; &gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; &gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; =
[RFC2104]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M. and =
R. Canetti,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; &gt; =
&quot;HMAC:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&=
nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Keyed-Hashing for =
Message</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; &gt; Authentication&quot;, RFC =
2104,&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&=
nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; February 1997.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; &gt;...</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; &gt; i think your interpretation of the =
rule is wrong (or, if not,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; &gt; then the rfc editor is interpretting =
it differently).</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; I stand corrected.&nbsp; This form is, =
IMO, bizarre (unlike what I </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; thought the rule was, which I can =
rationalize).&nbsp; But it is </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; clearly the form the RFC Editor has been =
using (and correcting </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; &gt; my documents to over the years without my =
noticing).</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; My age-old knowledge of correct citation format =
was what John </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; originally</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; said -- only the first author has surname =
first.&nbsp; The above format is</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; bizarre to me as well.&nbsp; What's the =
point?&nbsp; (I wonder what the new</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Chicago Manual of Style says.)&nbsp; I think =
xml2rfc should do the right</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; thing (i.e. what we say), and we'll fix what =
RFC Editor says.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; ..swb</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; =
_______________________________________________</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; xml2rfc mailing list</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; [email-masked]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; <A =
HREF=3D"http://lists.xml.resource.org/mailman/listinfo/xml2rfc" =
TARGET=3D"_blank">http://lists.xml.resource.org/mailman/listinfo/xml2rfc=
</A></FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C36002.D2A95B42--

From: [email-masked] (Marshall Rose)
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2003 21:57:50 -0700
Subject: [xml2rfc] figure handling vs DTD
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]>
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

> The DTD currently defaults the "src" attribute to an empty string. However,
> xml2rfc (when producing HTML) considers an empty "src" attribute, thus
> doesn't render the contents of the artwork but generates a broken link.
>    
> Either xml2rfc should treat an empty value as "not set", or the DTD must
> stop defaulting it to an empty string.
    
ok, we'll make it #IMPLIED.

/mtr

From: [email-masked] (Julian Reschke)
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2003 23:34:17 +0200
Subject: [xml2rfc] figure handling vs DTD
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

Hi.

The DTD currently defaults the "src" attribute to an empty string. However,
xml2rfc (when producing HTML) considers an empty "src" attribute, thus
doesn't render the contents of the artwork but generates a broken link.

Either xml2rfc should treat an empty value as "not set", or the DTD must
stop defaulting it to an empty string.

In general, the DTD does a lot of defaulting which is IMHO unneeded. It
causes source documents that are run through a validating XML parser to be
populated with useless (and in this case misleading) default values.

Regards, Julian

--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760

From: [email-masked] (Marshall Rose)
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2003 13:33:24 -0700
Subject: [xml2rfc] feature request: language tagging
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]>
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

> > yes, but the solution would be far too complicated.
> 
> I'm not sure about what you mean by "complicated". It's exactly what the XML
> spec says what a vocabulary that contains spoken languages should do, and
> generally users would never have to touch it. Or do you mean "too
> complicated" for implementors?
    
twice in the past people have asked for xml2rfc to support
languages-other-than-english and/or multiple-languages.
    
in each case, there's lot of discussion.
    
in each case, the pain is always severe.

> > i can see having a global language tag for a single document-wide
> > language. beyond that, the pain of getting it right far outweighs the
> > benefit to the rfc-writing community (the benefit being zero)...
> 
> The benefit being *small*.
    
until the rfc-editor decides that non-english/multi-lingual rfcs are
publishable, the benefit is precisely zero.

> So for now, how about allowing "xml:lang" on the rfc element, and letting it
> default to "en"?

sure. what should the behavior be for things producing html?
    
/mtr

From: [email-masked] (Julian Reschke)
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2003 10:03:51 +0200
Subject: [xml2rfc] feature request: language tagging
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

> From: [email-masked]
> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Marshall Rose
> Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2003 12:26 AM
> To: Julian Reschke
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] feature request: language tagging
>
>
> > xml2rfc usually is used to produce IETF specs, which by
> definition are in
> > english. However, there are cases where one wants to produce
> documents in
> > other languages, or even use different languages in the same document.
> >
> > At a minimum, xml2rfc should allow specifying a language for
> the complete
> > document, ideally by setting xml:lang on the <rfc> element. An HTML
> > converter can use this to produce a top-level "lang" attribute,
> and an FO
> > converter can use it to produce "language" tags (needed for proper
> > hyphenation).
> >
> > It would be even better if xml:lang would be allowed almost everywhere
> > (notably <section> and <t>).
>
> yes, but the solution would be far too complicated.

I'm not sure about what you mean by "complicated". It's exactly what the XML
spec says what a vocabulary that contains spoken languages should do, and
generally users would never have to touch it. Or do you mean "too
complicated" for implementors?

> i can see having a global language tag for a single document-wide
> language. beyond that, the pain of getting it right far outweighs the
> benefit to the rfc-writing community (the benefit being zero)...

The benefit being *small*.

So for now, how about allowing "xml:lang" on the rfc element, and letting it
default to "en"?

Julian

--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760

From: [email-masked] (Scott W Brim)
Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2003 21:13:20 -0400
Subject: [xml2rfc] Re: Bug in reference author output.
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>; from [email-masked] on Sat, Aug 09, 2003 at 06:37:06PM -0400
References: <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]>
Message-ID: <20030809211319.C2116@sbrim-w2k01>

On Sat, Aug 09, 2003 06:37:06PM -0400, John C Klensin allegedly wrote:
> 
> 
> --On Saturday, 09 August, 2003 15:24 -0700 Marshall Rose 
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> >> Actually, if Elwyn correctly reported this, it may be a
> >> problem.  The "official RFC style" is
> >>
> >> 	<surname>, <initials> For the first-listed author, and
> >> 	then <initials> <surname> for all of the others.
> >
> > hmmm... here are all the references from rfc3576 with more
> > than two listed authors:
> >
> >    [RFC2104]      Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M. and R. Canetti,
> > "HMAC:                   Keyed-Hashing for Message
> > Authentication", RFC 2104,                   February 1997.
> >...
> > i think your interpretation of the rule is wrong (or, if not,
> > then the rfc editor is interpretting it differently).
> 
> I stand corrected.  This form is, IMO, bizarre (unlike what I 
> thought the rule was, which I can rationalize).  But it is 
> clearly the form the RFC Editor has been using (and correcting 
> my documents to over the years without my noticing).

My age-old knowledge of correct citation format was what John originally
said -- only the first author has surname first.  The above format is
bizarre to me as well.  What's the point?  (I wonder what the new
Chicago Manual of Style says.)  I think xml2rfc should do the right
thing (i.e. what we say), and we'll fix what RFC Editor says.

..swb

From: [email-masked] (John C Klensin)
Date: Sat, 09 Aug 2003 18:37:06 -0400
Subject: [xml2rfc] Re: Bug in reference author output.
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]>
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

--On Saturday, 09 August, 2003 15:24 -0700 Marshall Rose 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> Actually, if Elwyn correctly reported this, it may be a
>> problem.  The "official RFC style" is
>>
>> 	<surname>, <initials> For the first-listed author, and
>> 	then <initials> <surname> for all of the others.
>
> hmmm... here are all the references from rfc3576 with more
> than two listed authors:
>
>    [RFC2104]      Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M. and R. Canetti,
> "HMAC:                   Keyed-Hashing for Message
> Authentication", RFC 2104,                   February 1997.
>...
> i think your interpretation of the rule is wrong (or, if not,
> then the rfc editor is interpretting it differently).

I stand corrected.  This form is, IMO, bizarre (unlike what I 
thought the rule was, which I can rationalize).  But it is 
clearly the form the RFC Editor has been using (and correcting 
my documents to over the years without my noticing).

Sorry for adding to the confusion.
     john

From: [email-masked] (Marshall Rose)
Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2003 15:26:02 -0700
Subject: [xml2rfc] feature request: language tagging
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]>
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

> xml2rfc usually is used to produce IETF specs, which by definition are in
> english. However, there are cases where one wants to produce documents in
> other languages, or even use different languages in the same document.
> 
> At a minimum, xml2rfc should allow specifying a language for the complete
> document, ideally by setting xml:lang on the <rfc> element. An HTML
> converter can use this to produce a top-level "lang" attribute, and an FO
> converter can use it to produce "language" tags (needed for proper
> hyphenation).
> 
> It would be even better if xml:lang would be allowed almost everywhere
> (notably <section> and <t>).

yes, but the solution would be far too complicated.
    
i can see having a global language tag for a single document-wide
language. beyond that, the pain of getting it right far outweighs the
benefit to the rfc-writing community (the benefit being zero)...
    
/mtr

From: [email-masked] (Marshall Rose)
Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2003 15:24:05 -0700
Subject: [xml2rfc] Re: Bug in reference author output.
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]>
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

> Actually, if Elwyn correctly reported this, it may be a problem. 
> The "official RFC style" is
> 
> 	<surname>, <initials> For the first-listed author, and
> 	then <initials> <surname> for all of the others.

hmmm... here are all the references from rfc3576 with more than two
listed authors:
    
   [RFC2104]      Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M. and R. Canetti, "HMAC:
                  Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104,
                  February 1997.

   [RFC2865]      Rigney, C., Willens, S., Rubens, A. and W. Simpson,
                  "Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)",
                  RFC 2865, June 2000.

   [RFC3162]      Aboba, B., Zorn, G. and D. Mitton, "RADIUS and IPv6",
                  RFC 3162, August 2001.

   [RFC3280]      Housley, R., Polk, W., Ford, W. and D. Solo, "Internet
                  X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and
                  Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Profile", RFC 3280,
                  April 2002.

i think your interpretation of the rule is wrong (or, if not, then the
rfc editor is interpretting it differently).
    
/mtr

From: [email-masked] (John C Klensin)
Date: Sat, 09 Aug 2003 15:42:29 -0400
Subject: [xml2rfc] Re: Bug in reference author output.
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

--On Saturday, 09 August, 2003 12:01 -0700 
"[email-masked]" 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> From: Marshall Rose <[email-masked]>
> To: "Elwyn Davies" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Bug in reference author output.
> Organization: Dover Beach Consulting, Inc.
>
>> If a reference has multiple authors, the last named author is
>> output as '<initials> <surname>' whereas all the others
>> (including the single author case) are output as '<surname>,
>> <initials>'.
>
> actually, that's the "official RFC style". go look at any
> rfc..., e.g., the recently published rfc 3576.

Actually, if Elwyn correctly reported this, it may be a problem. 
The "official RFC style" is

	<surname>, <initials> For the first-listed author, and
	then <initials> <surname> for all of the others.

so...

	Rose, M.T., J.C. Klensin, E. Davies, "title..."

while it sounds as if Elwyn is seeing

	M.T. Rose, J.C. Klensin, Davies, E., "title..."

which would be strange indeed.

    john

From: [email-masked] (John C Klensin)
Date: Sat, 09 Aug 2003 15:35:50 -0400
Subject: [xml2rfc] Re: Bug in reference author output.
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]>
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

--On Saturday, 09 August, 2003 12:01 -0700 
"[email-masked]" 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> From: Marshall Rose <[email-masked]>
> To: "Elwyn Davies" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Bug in reference author output.
> Organization: Dover Beach Consulting, Inc.
>
>> If a reference has multiple authors, the last named author is
>> output as '<initials> <surname>' whereas all the others
>> (including the single author case) are output as '<surname>,
>> <initials>'.
>
> actually, that's the "official RFC style". go look at any
> rfc..., e.g., the recently published rfc 3576.

Actually, if Elwyn correctly reported this, it may be a problem. 
The "official RFC style" is

	<surname>, <initials> For the first-listed author, and
	then <initials> <surname> for all of the others.

so...

	Rose, M.T., J.C. Klensin, E. Davies, "title..."

while it sounds as if Elwyn is seeing

	M.T. Rose, J.C. Klensin, Davies, E., "title..."

which would be strange indeed.

    john

From: [email-masked] (Marshall Rose)
Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2003 10:39:31 -0700
Subject: [xml2rfc] Bug in reference author output.
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]>
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

> If a reference has multiple authors, the last named author is output as
> '<initials> <surname>' whereas all the others (including the single author
> case) are output as '<surname>, <initials>'. 

actually, that's the "official RFC style". go look at any rfc..., e.g.,
the recently published rfc 3576.
    
/mtr

From: [email-masked] (Elwyn Davies)
Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2003 13:21:02 +0100
Subject: [xml2rfc] Bug in reference author output.
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

Hi.

There appears to be a bug (or at least an infelicity) in xml2rfc v1.19.

If a reference has multiple authors, the last named author is output as
'<initials> <surname>' whereas all the others (including the single author
case) are output as '<surname>, <initials>'. 

Regards,
Elwyn.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------

Elwyn B Davies

        Routing and Addressing Strategy Prime
        Portfolio Integration			Solutions Ready		

        Nortel Networks plc			Email:
[email-masked]
        Harlow Laboratories     			ESN
6-742-5498
        London Road, Harlow,    		Direct Line
+44-1279-405498
        Essex, CM17 9NA, UK     		Fax
+44-1279-402047
        Registered Office: 			Maidenhead Office Park,
Westacott Way,
        Company No. 3937799			Maidenhead, Berkshire, SSL6
3QH
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may contain information proprietary to Nortel Networks plc so
any
unauthorised disclosure, copying or distribution of its contents is strictly
prohibited.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Folly is mostly mine"
and the opinions are mine and not those of my employer.
============================================================================
======

From: [email-masked] (Julian Reschke)
Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2003 11:42:14 +0200
Subject: [xml2rfc] feature request: language tagging
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

Hi.

xml2rfc usually is used to produce IETF specs, which by definition are in
english. However, there are cases where one wants to produce documents in
other languages, or even use different languages in the same document.

At a minimum, xml2rfc should allow specifying a language for the complete
document, ideally by setting xml:lang on the <rfc> element. An HTML
converter can use this to produce a top-level "lang" attribute, and an FO
converter can use it to produce "language" tags (needed for proper
hyphenation).

It would be even better if xml:lang would be allowed almost everywhere
(notably <section> and <t>).

Julian

--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760

From: [email-masked] (Julian Reschke)
Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2003 11:42:05 +0200
Subject: [xml2rfc] validating xml from within emacs
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

There seems to be two big problems:

- empty system identifier not accepted
- RFC2629.DTD not accepted because of xml:space declarations

I'm actually not sure whether SGML tools are supposed to understand XML DTDs
(but I would have thought so). Fact is, RFC2629.DTD works with all XML
parsers I tried so far.

Unless somebody else here understands what's going on, I'd recommend to
either just to use an XML parser, or to ask the same question on the xml-dev
mailing list (where you'll likely get an explanation).

Julian

--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked]
> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Aaron Falk
> Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2003 12:18 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [xml2rfc] validating xml from within emacs
>
>
> I'm using emacs to create an XML draft and when I try to to validate
> it the following command is called
>
>    nsgmls -s  sample.xml
>
> This returns some surprising errors when run on sample.xml.  I'm
> including the output below.  Is there something wrong with my
> configuration?
>
> --aaron
>
>
>
> cd ~/xml2rfc/
> nsgmls -s  sample.xml
> nsgmls:sample.xml:6:29:E: invalid formal public identifier "": missing //
> nsgmls:rfc2629.dtd:191:13:E: character ":" invalid: only "CDATA",
> "ENTITIES", "ENTITY", "ID", "IDREF", "IDREFS", "NAME", "NAMES",
> "NMTOKEN", "NMTOKENS", "NOTATION", "NUMBER", "NUMBERS",
> "NUTOKEN", "NUTOKENS" and parameter separators allowed
> nsgmls:rfc2629.dtd:206:13:E: character ":" invalid: only "CDATA",
> "ENTITIES", "ENTITY", "ID", "IDREF", "IDREFS", "NAME", "NAMES",
> "NMTOKEN", "NMTOKENS", "NOTATION", "NUMBER", "NUMBERS",
> "NUTOKEN", "NUTOKENS" and parameter separators allowed
> nsgmls:sample.xml:23:16:E: end tag for "ORGANIZATION" omitted,
> but OMITTAG NO was specified
> nsgmls:sample.xml:22:12: start tag was here
> nsgmls:sample.xml:24:40:E: character data is not allowed here
> nsgmls:sample.xml:33:53:E: end tag for "XREF" omitted, but
> OMITTAG NO was specified
> nsgmls:sample.xml:33:25: start tag was here
> nsgmls:<URL>http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RF
> C.2119.xml:16:33:E: character data is not allowed here
> nsgmls:<URL>http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RF
> C.2119.xml:29:21:E: general entity "quot" not defined and no
> default entity
> nsgmls:<URL>http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RF
> C.2119.xml:39:35:E: character data is not allowed here
>
> SGML validation exited abnormally with code 1 at Fri Aug  8 15:16:17
>
> _______________________________________________
> xml2rfc mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://lists.xml.resource.org/mailman/listinfo/xml2rfc
>

From: [email-masked] (Aaron Falk)
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 15:18:07 -0700
Subject: [xml2rfc] validating xml from within emacs
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

I'm using emacs to create an XML draft and when I try to to validate
it the following command is called 

   nsgmls -s  sample.xml

This returns some surprising errors when run on sample.xml.  I'm
including the output below.  Is there something wrong with my
configuration?

--aaron

cd ~/xml2rfc/
nsgmls -s  sample.xml
nsgmls:sample.xml:6:29:E: invalid formal public identifier "": missing //
nsgmls:rfc2629.dtd:191:13:E: character ":" invalid: only "CDATA", "ENTITIES", "ENTITY", "ID", "IDREF", "IDREFS", "NAME", "NAMES", "NMTOKEN", "NMTOKENS", "NOTATION", "NUMBER", "NUMBERS", "NUTOKEN", "NUTOKENS" and parameter separators allowed
nsgmls:rfc2629.dtd:206:13:E: character ":" invalid: only "CDATA", "ENTITIES", "ENTITY", "ID", "IDREF", "IDREFS", "NAME", "NAMES", "NMTOKEN", "NMTOKENS", "NOTATION", "NUMBER", "NUMBERS", "NUTOKEN", "NUTOKENS" and parameter separators allowed
nsgmls:sample.xml:23:16:E: end tag for "ORGANIZATION" omitted, but OMITTAG NO was specified
nsgmls:sample.xml:22:12: start tag was here
nsgmls:sample.xml:24:40:E: character data is not allowed here
nsgmls:sample.xml:33:53:E: end tag for "XREF" omitted, but OMITTAG NO was specified
nsgmls:sample.xml:33:25: start tag was here
nsgmls:<URL>http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml:16:33:E: character data is not allowed here
nsgmls:<URL>http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml:29:21:E: general entity "quot" not defined and no default entity
nsgmls:<URL>http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml:39:35:E: character data is not allowed here

SGML validation exited abnormally with code 1 at Fri Aug  8 15:16:17

From: [email-masked] (Julian Reschke)
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 18:41:08 +0200
Subject: [xml2rfc] front/date
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

That's true, and of course what I meant is "not available".

The issue here is that the DTD forces people to add misleading elements such
as <date year=""/> just to satisfy the validator. If we *really* want to
enforce this, we should reject an empty year attribute as well, right?

Julian

--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marshall Rose [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 6:38 PM
> To: Julian Reschke
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] front/date
>
>
> > In reality, there's not always date information available, but
> one still is
> > required to add the (almost) empty date element. I'd recommend
> to just make
> > it optional.
>
> well, the issue is the difference between "not available" and
> "not present".
> obviously, there must be a publication year, even if it's not available.
>
> i suppose that it could be "optional", but it seems to me that
> the year must
> always be present in reality...
>
> /mtr
>

From: [email-masked] (Marshall Rose)
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 09:38:26 -0700
Subject: [xml2rfc] front/date
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]>
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

> In reality, there's not always date information available, but one still is
> required to add the (almost) empty date element. I'd recommend to just make
> it optional.

well, the issue is the difference between "not available" and "not present".
obviously, there must be a publication year, even if it's not available.

i suppose that it could be "optional", but it seems to me that the year must
always be present in reality...

/mtr

From: [email-masked] (Julian Reschke)
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 10:48:51 +0200
Subject: [xml2rfc] front/date
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

Here's an older DTD issue.

The DTD currently requires a date element within front, and requires a year
attribute on date. However, the code itself seems be entirely happy with no
date information at all, as in

	<date year="" />

In reality, there's not always date information available, but one still is
required to add the (almost) empty date element. I'd recommend to just make
it optional.

Julian

--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760

From: [email-masked] (Julian Reschke)
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2003 10:27:17 +0200
Subject: [xml2rfc] another numbering question
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

No.

Paragraph numbering is automatic.

--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760 

From: [email-masked] (Avri Doria)
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2003 10:43:14 +0900
Subject: [xml2rfc] another numbering question
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

hi,

i am currently combining two drafts into one, but not merging the 
contents.

i.e. i want to keep the section numberings separate.   specifically:

A.1, A.2, A.2.1 ...

and

B.1, B.2, B.3.2.1 ..

How would I do this?

Also, to make it even more difficult,  i would really like the document 
to come out as.

A.1 - A.4
B.1 - B.4
A.5  (since A.5 is a critique of B1 - B.4)

In other word interleaving the sections, but keeping them numbered 
separately.  I am not sure this will work for the reader, but I want to 
try producing the draft this way to see.  Can I?

thanks
a.

From: [email-masked] (avri)
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2003 10:41:02 +0900
Subject: [xml2rfc] another numbering question.
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>

hi,

i am currently combining two drafts into one, but not merging the 
contents.

i.e. i want to keep the section numberings separate.   specifically:

A.1, A.2, A.2.1 ...

and

B.1, B.2, B.3.2.1 ..

How would I do this?

Also, to make it even more difficult,  i would really like the document 
to come out as.

A.1 - A.4
B.1 - B.4
A.5  (since A.5 is a critique of B1 - B.4)

In other word interleaving the sections, but keeping them numbered 
separately.  I am not sure this will work for the reader, but I want to 
try producing the draft this way to see.  Can I?

thanks
a.