Subject: [xml2rfc] Ticket #105 - ability to create an unnumbered section

From: "Jim Schaad" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 13:26:14 -0800

I am getting ready to start implementation of this and wanted to make sure
that I have not missed things that need to be dealt with.

The changes that are to be made:

1.       Change the dtd to allow an "unnumbered" attribute on section with a
default value of "no"

2.       Unnumbered section are not permitted between any two numbered
sections.

3.       Unnumbered sections can occur in middle, back and numbered sections

4.       Unnumbered sections will have a different counter than numbered
sections, and will generate an autoAnchor string along the lines of
'rfc.section.u1' or 'rfc.section.1.u1' (for a section at the top level and
nested one deep respectively).

5.       Looking at the HTML output for sections, I find it odd that there
is an 'a' element emitted that points to where one is for sections.

    <h1 id="rfc.section.1"><a href="#rfc.section.1">1.</a> Introduction</h1>

since we don't have a bullet in this case to point to, I would propose that
the 'a' element be omitted.

Jim

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2013 11:10:37 +0100

On 2013-12-04 22:26, Jim Schaad wrote:
> I am getting ready to start implementation of this and wanted to make
> sure that I have not missed things that need to be dealt with.

Jim,

I don't think this is the right moment to change the vocabulary.

We have a mailing list for discussing these changes, and a Wiki to 
collect requirements (see 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-xml2rfc-latest.html#proposed.future.changes>).

> ...

Best regards, Julian

---

From: "Jim Schaad" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 08:37:34 -0800

Julian,

I will note that this is a change request from the RFC Production center and
not just a random change.  I have be told that it is very reasonable to go
ahead with these changes, but you can confirm this with the RFC Editor and
the v3 design team if you wish.

Jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Julian Reschke [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 2:11 AM
> To: Jim Schaad; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Ticket #105 - ability to create an unnumbered
section
> We have a mailing list for discussing these changes, and a Wiki to collect
> requirements (see <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-
> xml2rfc-latest.html#proposed.future.changes>).
> 
> > ...
> 
> Best regards, Julian

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2013 17:46:33 +0100

> the v3 design team if you wish.

Understood,

but I really don't see how this is different from all the other change 
requests we have.

It also seems that the xml2rfc tracker is yet another venue for 
discussing vocab changes. I think it would be really great if we could 
agree on a single venue, and the one proposed by the RSE was "rfc-design".

Personally I'd *love* to start with v3 changes, and I'm looking forward 
to support them in my XSLT code as well.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2013 14:55:48 +0100

> agree on a single venue, and the one proposed by the RSE was "rfc-design".

Oops.

"rfc-interest", not "rfc-design".

Best regards, Julian