Subject: [xml2rfc] #386 (Version_3_cli_txt): misleading warnings when <postalLine> is used

From: "xml2rfc issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 20:51:28 -0000

#386: misleading warnings when <postalLine> is used

 In the attached example, one author's address is specified using
 <postalLine> only.

 This generates the following warning:

 {{{
 Warning: Did not find a recognized country entry for author Julian Reschke
 }}}

-- 
-----------------------------------+--------------------
 Reporter:  [email-masked]  |      Owner:
     Type:  enhancement            |     Status:  new
 Priority:  minor                  |  Milestone:
Component:  Version_3_cli_txt      |    Version:  2.13.x
 Keywords:                         |
-----------------------------------+--------------------

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc/trac/ticket/386>
xml2rfc <http://tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc/>

---

From: "xml2rfc issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 20:59:35 -0000

Comment (by [email-masked]):

 Yes.  Is that incorrect?

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

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc/trac/ticket/386#comment:1>
xml2rfc <http://tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc/>

---

From: "xml2rfc issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 21:02:34 -0000

Comment (by [email-masked]):

 Why is that a warning? Why does the processor care? The document fully
 conforms to the requirements in the specs.

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc/trac/ticket/386#comment:2>
xml2rfc <http://tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc/>

---

From: "xml2rfc issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 21:08:06 -0000

You may not care.  If so, ignore it.  Others may care.  I would.

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc/trac/ticket/386#comment:3>
xml2rfc <http://tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc/>

---

From: "xml2rfc issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 04:22:10 -0000

Comment (by [email-masked]):

 It seems quite fair to say "Your input does not generate an address in the
 form that people usually use."  Probably most of the time this is
 triggered, it is a mistake by the author.

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc/trac/ticket/386#comment:4>
xml2rfc <http://tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc/>

---

From: "xml2rfc issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 05:08:25 -0000

In this case it would be consequent to ask for the removal of the
 <postalLine> element.

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc/trac/ticket/386#comment:5>
xml2rfc <http://tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc/>

---

From: "xml2rfc issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 13:19:01 -0000

Comment (by [email-masked]):

 I can think of a couple cases where this would be a false positive
 warning:
 postal standards have evolved; the library may not be complete; and the
 author just wants to use an alternate form.

 However, I agree with [email-masked] that a warning would still be
 useful when straying into these bounds.

 I know we're trying to get away from PIs, but this is the type of thing
 that PI were invented for: to turn on/off particular application options.

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc/trac/ticket/386#comment:6>
xml2rfc <http://tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc/>