Subject: [xml2rfc] #247 (Version 2 cli): &rfc.number; yields "XXXX" no matter what

From: "xml2rfc issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 21:09:37 -0000

#247: &rfc.number; yields "XXXX" no matter what

 The value of the rfc element's number attribute should be inserted where
 the entity &rfc.number; appears. Currently it inserts "XXXX", no matter
 what rfc number is set to.

 For example: with rfc number="7208" or "1234" or otherwise, output for
 &rfc.number; is currently "XXXX" but should be the number.

-- 
-----------------------------+----------------------------------
 Reporter:  [email-masked]  |      Owner:  [email-masked]
     Type:  defect           |     Status:  new
 Priority:  medium           |  Milestone:
Component:  Version 2 cli    |    Version:  2.4.x
 Keywords:                   |
-----------------------------+----------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc/trac/ticket/247>
xml2rfc <http://tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc/>

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 23:17:38 +0200

>  &rfc.number; is currently "XXXX" but should be the number.

Huh.  This is a regression.  I put serious work into making that happen
some time ago; for the 2.3.0 release I believe.

Best regards,

	Henrik

---

From: "xml2rfc issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 06:46:06 -0000

Comment (by [email-masked]):

 I disagree. The old code's special-casing of &rfc.number; is an ugly hack.
 We need to get rid of it.

-- 
------------------------------+----------------------------------
Resolution:                   |   Keywords:
------------------------------+----------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc/trac/ticket/247#comment:1>
xml2rfc <http://tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc/>

---

From: "xml2rfc issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 12:37:56 -0000

Comment (by [email-masked]):

 It may be a hack, but it's a specialized hack for use specifically by the
 RFC editor.

 It cannot be gotten rid of for v2 -- it needs to be fixed to work
 properly.

 For v3, replace it with what exactly? Unless there is a valid replacement
 suggested, I disagree with the suggestion that it be gotten rid of.

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc/trac/ticket/247#comment:2>
xml2rfc <http://tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc/>

---

From: "xml2rfc issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 12:49:38 -0000

Replying to [comment:2 tony@…]:
 > It may be a hack, but it's a specialized hack for use specifically by
 the RFC editor.

 The use can be easily avoided by either saying "this document", or by
 pasting in the actual document number.

 properly.

 It's not part of the language, so yes, we could get rid of it.

 > For v3, replace it with what exactly? Unless there is a valid
 replacement suggested, I disagree with the suggestion that it be gotten
 rid of.

 If there really is a requirement to support this then we should do it
 trough an element, such as "<rfcno/>".

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc/trac/ticket/247#comment:3>
xml2rfc <http://tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc/>

---

From: "xml2rfc issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 13:02:31 -0000

BTW: a simple way to address this use case is to actually *define* an
 entity that holds the RFC number inside the document:

 {{{
 <!DOCTYPE rfc [

   <!ENTITY rfc.number "1234">
 ]>
 }}}

 and use it where needed, such as in

 {{{
    <rfc number="&rfc.number;" ...
 }}}
 }}}

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc/trac/ticket/247#comment:4>
xml2rfc <http://tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc/>