Subject: [xml2rfc] #356 (Version_3_cli_txt): caption for <table>

From: "xml2rfc issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2018 20:21:14 -0000

#356: caption for <table>

 There is no way to caption a table, `texttable` at least had `postamble`,
 but a table can't be contained in a figure (because it can contain a
 figure?).

 This means I can't render a table with 'Table N' in the document, because
 you can't specify that in the XML.

 Bit of a loss if you ask me.

-- 
-------------------------------+-------------------
 Reporter:  [email-masked]       |      Owner:
     Type:  defect             |     Status:  new
 Priority:  medium             |  Milestone:
Component:  Version_3_cli_txt  |    Version:  2.4.x
 Keywords:                     |
-------------------------------+-------------------

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc/trac/ticket/356>
xml2rfc <http://tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc/>

---

From: "Paul Hoffman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2018 13:32:19 -0700

Miek: If you have issues with the spec (as compared to this one 
implementation of the spec), you should be sending them to 
[email-masked].

Having said that, design changes at this late date (that is, years after 
adoption) might be viewed a bit askance. There was lots of discussion on 
all the changes, and some only had rough consensus. Given that the XML 
format is pretty much a UI, arguments between "I know what I want" 
versus "but I want something different" comes down to best guesses among 
a group at a specific time.

--Paul Hoffman

---

From: Miek Gieben <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2018 21:41:15 +0100

[ Quoting <[email-masked]> in "Re: [xml2rfc] #356 (Version_3_cli_t..." ]
>Having said that, design changes at this late date (that is, years 
>after adoption) might be viewed a bit askance. There was lots of 
>discussion on all the changes, and some only had rough consensus. 
>Given that the XML format is pretty much a UI, arguments between "I 
>know what I want" versus "but I want something different" comes down 
>to best guesses among a group at a specific time.

I understand. I had to unsubscribe from rfc-interest due to the level of emails.

---

From: "xml2rfc issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2018 20:41:47 -0000

Changes (by [email-masked]):

 * status:  new => closed
 * resolution:   => wontfix

Comment:

 not a cli issue.

-- 
--------------------------------+--------------------
  Reporter:  [email-masked]       |      Owner:
      Type:  defect             |     Status:  closed
  Priority:  medium             |  Milestone:
 Component:  Version_3_cli_txt  |    Version:  2.4.x
Resolution:  wontfix            |   Keywords:
--------------------------------+--------------------

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc/trac/ticket/356#comment:1>
xml2rfc <http://tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc/>

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2018 00:03:29 +0200

Hi Miek,

>  you can't specify that in the XML.

Something's not right here.  In v3 (RFC7991) all tables will get a "Table N"
caption, and if you provide a <name>, it will additionally contain the given
text: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7991#section-2.54

I think what you want to do is perfectly possible with the v3 vocabulary.

Please provide the xml and the xml2rfc invocation you used to process it
so I can work out what's happening, and whether there's a bug in the
formatter.

Best,

	Henrik