## Implementation notes for RFC7991,draft-levkowetz-xml2rfc-v3-implementation-notes-13

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Author Henrik Levkowetz
Last updated 2021-09-16
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                                       H. Levkowetz
Internet-Draft                                              Elf Tools AB
Intended status: Informational                         16 September 2021
Expires: 20 March 2022

Implementation notes for RFC7991,
"The 'xml2rfc' Version 3 Vocabulary"
draft-levkowetz-xml2rfc-v3-implementation-notes-13

Abstract

This memo documents issues and observations found while implementing
RFC 7991.  Individual notes are organised into separate sections,
depending on their character.

Status of This Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

This Internet-Draft will expire on 20 March 2022.

Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document.  Code Components
extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text
as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.

Levkowetz                 Expires 20 March 2022                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft        RFC7991 Implementation Notes        September 2021

1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
1.1.  Current Status  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
2.  Fitness for Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
2.1.  Degraded Table of Contents  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
2.2.  RFC Publication Date Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
3.  Schema Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
3.1.  RFC 7991  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
3.1.1.  Before Section 2.5: <artset>  . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
3.1.2.  In Section 2.5.5, "name" Attribute  . . . . . . . . .   9
3.1.3.  In Section 2.5.7, <artwork> "type" Attribute  . . . .   9
3.1.4.  In Section 2.6, <aside> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
3.1.5.  In Section 2.12, <br> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
3.1.6.  In Section 2.20, <dl> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
3.1.7.  New Section 2.20.4, "indent" Attribute  . . . . . . .  13
3.1.8.  New Section 2.54.2  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
3.1.9.  In Section 2.27, <iref> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
3.1.10. In Section 2.29, <li> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
3.1.11. In Section 2.32, <name> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
3.1.12. In Section 2.32, <organization> . . . . . . . . . . .  15
3.1.13. In Section 2.37, <postal> . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
3.1.14. In Section 2.40.2, "quoteTitle" . . . . . . . . . . .  17
3.1.15. In Section 2.41, <referencegroup> . . . . . . . . . .  17
3.1.16. In Section 2.42, <references> . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
3.1.17. In Section 2.45.1, "category" Attribute . . . . . . .  18
3.1.18. In Section 2.45.3, "docName" Attribute  . . . . . . .  18
3.1.19. In Section 2.45.7, "number" Attribute . . . . . . . .  19
3.1.20. In Section 2.46.2, "numbered" Attribute . . . . . . .  19
3.1.21. In Section 2.47, <seriesInfo> . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
3.1.22. In Section 2.48, <sourcecode> . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
3.1.23. In Section 2.53.3 and 2.53.4. . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
3.1.24. New Section 2.X, <u>  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
3.1.25. In Section 2.63.2, <ul> "empty" attribute . . . . . .  23
3.1.26. In Section 2.66.1, <xref> "format" attribute  . . . .  24
3.1.27. In Section 3.3, <format>  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
3.1.28. In Section 3.4.2, "hangIndent" Attribute  . . . . . .  25
3.1.29. In Appendix C.  Relax NG schema . . . . . . . . . . .  26
3.1.30. Use of the term "counter".  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
3.1.31. In Section 2.44, <relref> . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
3.1.32. In Section 2.66, <xref> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
3.1.33. Contributor names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
3.2.  RFC 7998  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
3.2.1.  New Section 5.1.6, Attribute validation . . . . . . .  28
3.2.2.  In Section 5.2.6, Attribute Default Value
Insertion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
3.2.3.  In Section 5.4.6, "pn" Numbering. . . . . . . . . . .  29
3.3.  Some attributes should have value type xsd:ID . . . . . .  29

Levkowetz                 Expires 20 March 2022                 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft        RFC7991 Implementation Notes        September 2021

4.  Non-Schema Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
4.1.  RFC 7991  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
4.1.1.  In Section 2.5.7, "type" Attribute  . . . . . . . . .  29
4.1.2.  New Section 2.8.1: Index  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
4.1.3.  In Section 2.17, <date> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
4.1.4.  In Section 2.40.1, "anchor" Attribute . . . . . . . .  32
4.1.5.  In Section 2.48.4, "type" Attribute . . . . . . . . .  32
4.1.6.  In Appendix A.1.1: TLP switch-over date
discrepancies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
4.1.7.  In Appendix B.2.1: Generation of PN numbers . . . . .  33
4.2.  RFC 7992  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
4.2.1.  In Section 5.1, IDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
4.2.2.  In Section 6.2, Root Element  . . . . . . . . . . . .  34
4.2.3.  In Section 6.4, Page Headers and Footers  . . . . . .  34
4.2.4.  In Section 6.5, Document Information  . . . . . . . .  35
4.2.5.  In Section 8.1.1, Index Contents  . . . . . . . . . .  35
4.2.6.  Inconsistent use of "s-", "n-" and User-Supplied "id"
Attributes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
4.2.7.  In Section 9.2, <address> . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
4.2.8.  In Section 9.7.2, Authors of this Document  . . . . .  37
4.2.9.  In Section 9.7.3, Authors of References . . . . . . .  38
4.2.10. In Section 9.16, <cref> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  38
4.2.11. In Section 9.24, <eref> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  38
4.2.12. In Section 9.25, <figure> . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  38
4.2.13. In Section 9.27, <iref> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  38
4.2.14. In Section 9.33, <note> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  39
4.2.15. In Section 9.34, <ol> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  39
4.2.16. In Section 9.35, <organization> . . . . . . . . . . .  39
4.2.17. In Section 9.36, <phone>  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  39
4.2.18. In Section 9.37, <postal> . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  39
4.2.19. In Section 9.40, <reference>  . . . . . . . . . . . .  40
4.2.20. In Section 9.41, <referencegroup> . . . . . . . . . .  41
4.2.21. In Section 9.42, <references> . . . . . . . . . . . .  41
4.2.22. In Section 9.54, <table>  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  41
4.2.23. In Section 9.56, <td> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  41
4.2.24. In Section 9.58, <th> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  42
4.2.25. In Section 9.60, <title>  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  42
4.2.26. In Section 9.66, <xref> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  42
4.2.27. In Section 9.18, <dd> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  43
4.3.  RFC 7994  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  43
4.3.1.  Additional Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  43
4.4.  RFC 7998  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  43
4.4.1.  In Section 5.2.3, <date> Insertion  . . . . . . . . .  44
4.4.2.  In Section 5.2.4, "prepTime" Insertion  . . . . . . .  44
4.4.3.  In Section 5.2.6, Attribute Default Value
Insertion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  44
4.4.4.  In Section 5.2.7, "toc" Attribute . . . . . . . . . .  45
4.4.5.  In Section 5.2.8, "removeInRFC" Warning Paragraph . .  45

Levkowetz                 Expires 20 March 2022                 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft        RFC7991 Implementation Notes        September 2021

4.4.6.  In Section 5.3.1, "month" Attribute . . . . . . . . .  45
4.4.7.  In Section 5.3.2, ASCII Attribute Processing  . . . .  46
4.4.8.  New Section 5.3.4: "keepWithNext" Normalisation . . .  46
4.4.9.  In Section 5.4.2, <boilerplate> Insertion: Only for
RFCs? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  47
4.4.10. In Section 5.4.2, <boilerplate> Insertion: Error
Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  47
4.4.11. In Section 5.4.2.1, Compare submissionType and
<seriesInfo> "stream".  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  48
4.4.12. In Section 5.4.2.2, "Status of this Memo"
Insertion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  48
4.4.13. In Section 5.4.3, <reference> "target" Insertion  . .  48
4.4.14. In Section 5.4.4, <name> Slugification  . . . . . . .  49
4.4.15. In Section 5.4.6, "pn" Numbering. . . . . . . . . . .  49
4.4.16. In Section 5.4.7, <iref> Numbering  . . . . . . . . .  51
4.4.17. In Section 5.4.8.1, "derivedContent" Insertion (with
Content)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  51
4.4.18. In Section 5.4.8.2, "derivedContent" Insertion (without
Content)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  52
4.4.19. In Section 5.5.1, <artwork> Processing  . . . . . . .  52
4.4.20. In Section 5.5.2, <sourcecode> Processing . . . . . .  53
4.4.21. In Section 5.4.8.2, "derivedContent" Insertion. . . .  53
4.4.22. In Section 5.4.9, <relref> Processing . . . . . . . .  54
4.4.23. New Section 5.4.10, Unused Reference Warnings . . . .  54
4.4.24. New Section 5.4.11, Index Insertion . . . . . . . . .  54
4.4.25. In Section 5.6.3, <link> Processing . . . . . . . . .  55
5.  Possible New Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  55
5.1.  Inline and Display Math . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  55
5.2.  Change Bars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  56
5.3.  Element Nesting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  56
5.4.  Schema Consistency  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  57
6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  57
7.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  57
Appendix A.  Proposed new sections in RFC 7991 bis  . . . . . . .  59
A.1.  <u> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  59
A.1.1.  Expansion of simplified <u> format specifications . .  59
A.1.2.  Non-simplified <u> format specifications  . . . . . .  61
A.1.3.  Split expansion of <u> elements . . . . . . . . . . .  61
A.2.  <rendering> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  64
Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  65

1.  Introduction

Implementation of tool support for [RFC7991] and related
specifications has been done during 2017 and 2018, split in the
following individual parts, all implemented as individual modes of
the python-based xml2rfc processor [XML2RFC]:

Levkowetz                 Expires 20 March 2022                 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft        RFC7991 Implementation Notes        September 2021

*  An XML converter from vocabulary version 2 [RFC7749] to version 3
[RFC7991]

*  A Normalisation processor, "PrepTool", [RFC7997]

*  An XML to plain text converter [RFC7994] for the version 3
vocabulary

*  An XML to HTML converter [RFC7992] for the version 3 vocabulary
(work in progress as of 28 Sep. 2018)

*  A HTML to PDF converter [RFC7995] for the version 3 vocabulary
(pending as of 28 Sep. 2018)

During the implementation work, a number of issues with the
specification has been found (this was expected at the outset by all
parties) and a number of observations has been made about limitations
of the specification and vocabulary version 3 schema, and also
limitations in the specification of the work to be done.

The purpose of this memo is to collect those issues and observations
in one place.

When this memo says 'the current version of xml2rfc', it refers to
the latest release of the xml2rfc processor available from the PyPi
package repository (https://pypi.org/pypi/xml2rfc) at the date this
document was published, as given above.

1.1.  Current Status

For most of the issues listed in this document, a resolution is now
(14 Jul 2020, "draft-levkowetz-xml2rfc-v3-implementation-notes-11")
available.  For most issues where the resolution imply changes
compared with the published specifications, the changes have been
made over time, and are available in the released "xml2rfc".
However, some issues remain:

*  Separation of type and content for <artwork>, Section 3.1.3:
The implementation only recognises type values that are related to
the format of the artwork, for instance "svg" and "ascii-art", but
no attribute has been designated to hold content types, such as
"call-flow".  We can either simply narrow the description of the
"type" attribute of <artwork>, and eliminate the support for
content labelling, or add a new attribute.

Levkowetz                 Expires 20 March 2022                 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft        RFC7991 Implementation Notes        September 2021

*  Introduction of a "bullet" attribute for <ul> Section 3.1.10.1.
This would let us get rid of the awkward "bare" attribute that was
introduced to make unindented lists possible, something that was
needed by the RPC; and would be a much more general solution.

*  Simplification of mixed-content elements, Section 3.1.10.2.
Confusion about when you have to use a sequence of <t> elements
within for instance <li> elements, and when you can use bare text,
keeps coming up as a point of confusion from users on the mailing
lists.  Being able to omit the wrapping of text in <t> in some
cases is a small convenience that doesn't make up for the
confusion caused by the mixed content model.

*  Deprecation of the new "quoteTitle", keep original "quote-title",
Section 3.1.14.

*  Official deprecation of the new <seriesInfo> attributes,
Section 3.1.21.  Implementing this, and reverting to v2 behaviour
would permit better error messages and would simplified
documentation and usage no end.  Currently <seriesInfo> instances
in references are moved fr

*  Permitting "keepWithNext" on all elements that can be siblings to
<t>, in order to make it useful also for other child elements of
<section>, Section 3.1.23.1.  Not being able to set "keepWithNext"
on other child elements of <section> than <t> repeatedly comes up
as an issue preventing better page break handlinng when generating
PDFs.  (There are also issues with the WeasyPrint engine in this
area, but not having general "keepWithNext" support makes the
issue harder than need be).

*  Permitting an "asciiAbbrev" attribute for <title>,
Section 3.1.12.1, to match the "ascii" attribute for the non-
abbreviated title.

2.  Fitness for Purpose

The introduction to [RFC7991] states:

"This document defines the "xml2rfc" version 3 vocabulary: an XML-
based language used for writing RFCs and Internet-Drafts.  It is
heavily derived from the version 2 vocabulary that is also under
discussion.  This document obsoletes the v2 grammar described in
RFC 7749."

Levkowetz                 Expires 20 March 2022                 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft        RFC7991 Implementation Notes        September 2021

However, an unstated assumption seems to have been that the new tools
and formatters would be used primarily to produce HTML output, in
order to transition to publication of renderings of RFCs in more
modern formats than plain-text ASCII.

This is a reasonable and worthwhile goal, but as a result, the schema
as specified in [RFC7991] has some drawbacks compared with the
version 2 vocabulary when used to produce Internet-Drafts in the text
format common within the IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) at
this time.

Lack of pagination has little impact on direct online readability,
but when comparing the output of the new text formatter with the old
one, one aspect leaps out: Since there is no pagination, the table of
contents simply lists the section headers to a certain depth, without
any accompanying page numbers.  This makes a surprising difference in
how useful the table of contents is in getting an initial feel for
the document.  The at-a-glance information which lets a reader know
if this is a document of 10 pages or 100 is simply lacking.

Proposal:  Add support for pagination in a future version of the text
formatter.

Implementation:  The current implementation provides pagination for
drafts.  The pagination can be turned off with an option switch.
Text/plain output for RFCs is always generated without pagination.

Heather's indication 20 Jul 2019:  OK for IDs but default should not
change for RFCs

2.2.  RFC Publication Date Policy

The specification [RFC7998] says that an error should be generated if
a <date> specification is found with missing elements; but the RFC
Editor publishes documents (except for April 1st RFCs) with only year
and month, no day of month.  The specification disallows this, and in
effect makes it impossible for the RFC Editor to publish documents
according to the current policy regarding publication date format.

Proposal:  Revert to to the old behaviour, where the tool in RFC mode
would issue a date with or without day depending on whether the
<date> element had a day attribute or not.

Implementation:  The current version of xml2rfc does not enforce the

Levkowetz                 Expires 20 March 2022                 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft        RFC7991 Implementation Notes        September 2021

requirement that all three <date> elements are present in RFC
mode, but leaves up to author and RPC (RFC Production Center)
staff to insert day information as appropriate.

Heather's indication 20 Jul 2019:  Desired behaviour is to be able to
publish with or without exact date.

3.  Schema Issues

3.1.  RFC 7991

3.1.1.  Before Section 2.5: <artset>

The way <artwork> has been specified to handle the presence of both
SVG artwork and text fallback (in Section 2.5 of [RFC7991]) has the
result that any SVG content has to be placed as a data: URL in the
"src" attribute when an ascii-art fallback is present.  This makes
the SVG effectively uneditable once the preptool has been run, even
if the SVG artwork was originally provided as a regular SVG XML file
external to the document XML file.

In order to be able to more easily deal with alternative instances of
artwork, and in the future possibly deal smoothly with a wider number
of alternative artwork formats than is currently provided for, a new
element <artset> could be introduced, presenting a set of alternative
artwork executions.  This would let the renderer pick the most
appropriate <artwork> instance for its format from the alternatives
present within an <artset> element, based on the "type" attribute of
each enclosed <artwork> element.

If more than one <artwork> element is found within an <artset>
element, with the same "type" attribute, the renderer could select
the first one, or possibly choose between the alternative instances
based on the output format and some quality of the alternative
instances that made one more suitable than the other for that
particular format, such as size, aspect ratio, or whatnot.

Implementation:  Xml2rfc as of version 2.19.0 implements this, with a
preference list when rendering to HTML and PDF of ( "svg",
"binary-art", "ascii-art" ), while the text renderer uses the list
( "ascii-art", ) -- i.e., one entry only.  The Relax-NG compact
schema used for <artset> is this:

Levkowetz                 Expires 20 March 2022                 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft        RFC7991 Implementation Notes        September 2021

artset =
element artset {
attribute xml:base { text }?,
attribute xml:lang { text }?,
attribute anchor { xsd:ID }?,
attribute pn { xsd:ID }?,
artwork+
}

The <artset> element can occur anywhere an <artwork> element can
occur.  The first anchor on an <artwork> element within an
<artset> element will be promoted to the <artset> element if it
has none; apart from that, anchors on <artwork> elements within an
<artset> element will be removed by the preptool.

Heather's indication 20 Jul 2019:  OK

3.1.2.  In Section 2.5.5, "name" Attribute

"A filename suitable for the contents (such as for extraction to a
local file)."

Given the existing use of "name" on <seriesInfo>, this attribute name
has a semantic dissonance.

Proposal:  Deprecate "name" for use on <artwork> and <sourcecode>,
and instead use "file", which for <sourcecode> will be explicitly
rendered, as established as best current practice for YANG modules
as specified in [RFC8407].

Implementation:  The current version of xml2rfc uses "name".

Resolution:  The attribute "name" was used for this purpose already
in v2 of the vocabulary.  Closed with no action.

Heather's indication 20 Jul 2019:  OK on resolution

This issue is tracked as github issue #36 (https://github.com/rfc-
format/draft-iab-xml2rfc-v3-bis/issues/36)

3.1.3.  In Section 2.5.7, <artwork> "type" Attribute

The text lists a number of preferred values, but does not indicate
how these are to be used, or what to do with other values.  In
particular, the default value is "" (i.e., empty) -- should this
cause a warning or error, or any other action?  If not, how should
'preferred' be understood?

Levkowetz                 Expires 20 March 2022                 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft        RFC7991 Implementation Notes        September 2021

Additionally, according to Section 5.1 of RFC 7991, any text content
serves as ascii-art fallback in case the rendering format cannot
render the content that the 'src' attribute indicates.  But in that
case, it seems that the "type" attribute should apply exclusively to
the content that the "src" attribute points at.  This should be
clarified in the text.

Further, some thought about the possible use cases for the listed
preferred values of the "type" attribute makes it appear that the
given list contains values from (at least) two different classes of
things:

*  "svg" seems to describe a format

*  "binary-art" also seems to describe a format

*  "ascii-art" also seems to describe a format

*  "call-flow" seems to describe the art content

*  "hex-dump" seems to describe the art content

Proposal:  Require the "type" attribute to have a value if the "src"
attribute is specified, and let it describe the format.  If any
action should be taken on the basis of one of the preferred values
appearing or a different value appearing, add text to indicate so.

For values like "call-flow" and "hex-dump", add a different
attribute to describe the artwork content.  Do not conflate the
artwork description with the artwork format given in the "type"
attribute.

Implementation:  The current implementation uses the "type" attribute
to determine how to process the "src" attribute.  Handling exists
for the values "svg", "binary-art", and "ascii-art".  The idnits
rewrite warns if type has any value other than "svg", "binary-
art", or "ascii-art".

As of version 2.19.0 of xml2rfc, the conflict between the type
that the "src" attribute points at, and any ascii-art fallback has
been removed by introduction of the <artset> element.  A solution
is still needed if it's desired to have an attribute that
describes the content type.

Heather's indication 20 Jul 2019:  OK on the implementation
(accepting only format types, not content types, for the "type"
attribute, and using that to determine which <artwork> to select).

Levkowetz                 Expires 20 March 2022                [Page 10]
Internet-Draft        RFC7991 Implementation Notes        September 2021

3.1.4.  In Section 2.6, <aside>

3.1.4.1.  Child element <list>

The schema permits <list> inside <aside>, but <list> is deprecated,
and <aside> is a new vocabulary v3 element, so they should never be
able to occur together, it seems to me.

Proposal:  Don't permit <list> inside <aside>.

Implementation:  Implemented in the current version of xml2rfc.

Heather's indication 20 Jul 2019:  OK

3.1.4.2.  Child element <table>

The schema permits <table> inside <aside>, but does not permit
<table> inside <blockquote>.  Lacking any indication of why this is,
it seems reasonable to propose that the schema be adjusted to permit
<table> inside either both or neither.

An added consideration is that appropriate rendering of table headers
and footers across page breaks may be in conflict with rendering of
<table> within <aside> and <blockquote>.

Implementation:  The current implementation (xml2rfc version 2.21.x)
permits <table> inside both <aside> and <blockquote>, but does not
guarantee that <aside>s and <blockquote>s broken across pages will
have new table headers and footers added if a table inside is
split over multiple pages.

Heather's indication 20 Jul 2019:  OK

3.1.5.  In Section 2.12, <br>

A number of elements permits a mixed content model (see
Section 3.1.10.2): <li>, <blockquote>, <dd>, <td>, and <th>.
However, when using the simpler of the two content schemas, two of
them (<td> and <th>) permit inline line breaks through the use of
<br> elements; the others do not.  This seems terribly arbitrary.

Proposal:  Remove the <br> element completely.  Alternatively, permit
it to be used all places that 'text' and non-block elements may be
used (that is, in inline context).

Resolution:  After repeated list discussion, the <br> element was
accepted in inline context.

Levkowetz                 Expires 20 March 2022                [Page 11]
Internet-Draft        RFC7991 Implementation Notes        September 2021

The implementation permits this element as a child element of
blockquote, cref, dd, dt, em, li, name, strong, t, td, th, title,
and tt.

This issue is tracked as github issue #37 (https://github.com/rfc-
format/draft-iab-xml2rfc-v3-bis/issues/37)

3.1.6.  In Section 2.20, <dl>

The current specification says:

"The "hanging" attribute defines whether or not the term appears
on the same line as the definition.  hanging="true" indicates that
the term is to the left of the definition, while hanging="false"
indicates that the term will be on a separate line."

This does not match established typographic terminology.  In
typographic terminology, "hanging indent" describes the case where
the indentation of the second and subsequent lines of a paragraph is
greater than the indentation of the first line.  Whether the
definition in a definition list starts on the first line or not has
nothing to do with the presence of hanging indent; our definition
lists will *always* have hanging indent.

The 'hanging' attribute also describes something different from what
the term has been used to describe in the version 2 vocabulary.  This
will be confusing to users.

A more descriptive name for the attribute we're talking about would
be 'start-definition-on-first-line', but that's unwieldy.  Maybe
'newline="false"' to start the definition on the first line, or
something like 'definition-start="first"'?

Proposal:  Change this to a different term that is more descriptive
and does not use typographically incorrect terminology.

Resolution:  The "hanging" attribute will be renamed to "newline",
with newline="true" meaning the same as hanging="false".  The
default value will change accordingly.

This issue is tracked as github issue #38 (https://github.com/rfc-
format/draft-iab-xml2rfc-v3-bis/issues/38)

Levkowetz                 Expires 20 March 2022                [Page 12]
Internet-Draft        RFC7991 Implementation Notes        September 2021

3.1.7.  New Section 2.20.4, "indent" Attribute

The deprecation of the "hangIndent" attribute on <list> leaves no
opportunity to control the size of the hanging indent.  In some
definition lists, it is desirable to have a wide indentation, in
order to clearly show the terms, in other cases it is more important
to allow for a larger text volume than the width of the terms would
allow.

Proposal:  Add an "indent" attribute on <dl> to control the size of
the hanging indent.

Resolution:  An "indent" attribute will be added on <dl> to control
the size of the hanging indent.  The value will signify the number
of character positions in text/plain rendering, and a count of
0.5em distances in richer renderings.

Heather's indication on 20 Jul 2019:  OK

This issue is tracked as github issue #39 (https://github.com/rfc-
format/draft-iab-xml2rfc-v3-bis/issues/39)

3.1.8.  New Section 2.54.2

The version 3 schema deprecates the previously available 'align'
attribute for the tables, and the V2 to V3 converter will remove this
attributes if used.  This makes a previous feature that was
appreciated by some authors unavailable.  In the text formatter, the
effect is simply to make all tables left-aligned, which may not be
the most readable and polished output, but for the HTML formatter it
also potentially removes the option of letting text flow around
smaller tables in a controlled way.

Proposal:  Make the 'align' attribute for tables available again.

Resolution:  An attribute "align" will be re-introduced for table
alignment, with the possible values "left", "center", and "right".

Heather's indication 20 Jul 2019:  OK

This issue is tracked as github issue #40 (https://github.com/rfc-
format/draft-iab-xml2rfc-v3-bis/issues/40)

Levkowetz                 Expires 20 March 2022                [Page 13]
Internet-Draft        RFC7991 Implementation Notes        September 2021

3.1.9.  In Section 2.27, <iref>

In HTML5, <span> may not be placed directly inside a table.  RFC 7992
specifies that <iref> should be rendered as a <span>, and also
specifies that <table> is directly rendered as its HTML counterpart.
This results in generating invalid HTML.

Proposal:  Disallow <iref> as a direct child of <table> (but still
permitting it within <th> and <td>).

Implementation:  The current implementation works around this by
moving the <span> outside the <table>.  This is less than ideal.

3.1.10.  In Section 2.29, <li>

3.1.10.1.  Unordered lists with arbitrary symbols

When <li> is used with <ul empty="true">, the rendering is under-
specified (the specification says 'no label will be shown", but
doesn't say whether list indentation (leading whitespace) should be
eliminated or not.

If the intention is to make it possible to render unordered lists
with arbitrary symbols, chosen on a per-list-item basis, the current
attributes of <li> are insufficient to indent and line-wrap list
items properly with <ul empty='true'>.

It is not possible, for instance, to use <ul> lists to generate XML
for a table of content, since if the width of the bullet (the section
number, in this case) is unknown, the proper indentation and line
wrapping cannot be determined.

Proposal:  Add an explicit "bullet" attribute to support this use
case.

Resolution:  Rejected.

Heather's indication 20 Jul 2019:  OK, makes sense to implement.
That would eliminate the need for the "bare" attribute mentioned
in Section 3.1.25.

This issue is tracked as github issue #45 (https://github.com/rfc-
format/draft-iab-xml2rfc-v3-bis/issues/45)

Levkowetz                 Expires 20 March 2022                [Page 14]
Internet-Draft        RFC7991 Implementation Notes        September 2021

3.1.10.2.  Mixed Content Model

The mixed content model for <li> - either text and inline elements
like sub, sup, bcp14, _or_ <t>, <ul>, <figure> etc, is non-intuitive
and may be hard for users to keep straight.

Proposal:  Consider simplifying the schema by requiring that text and
inline elements always are placed within a <t> element.

Resolution:  Rejected.

Heather's indication 20 Jul 2019:  OK

This would apply also to other elements that today have alternative
content models: <blockquote>, <dd>, <td>, and <th>.

This issue is tracked as github issue #46 (https://github.com/rfc-
format/draft-iab-xml2rfc-v3-bis/issues/46)

3.1.11.  In Section 2.32, <name>

So the <name> element can contain text or <tt>, and <tt> can contain
other markup like <sub> and <sup> etc., but why cannot <name> contain
<sup> etc.  directly?

Proposal:  Change the <name> element schema to permit all inline
elements that <tt> can contain, in addition to <tt>.

Resolution:  Accepted.

This issue is tracked as github issue #47 (https://github.com/rfc-
format/draft-iab-xml2rfc-v3-bis/issues/47)

3.1.12.  In Section 2.32, <organization>

3.1.12.1.  Missing "asciiAbbrev" Attribute

The schema provides for extra attributes: "ascii" and "abbrev".  Why
no "asciiAbbrev" for the case when the name and abbreviation has non-
ascii characters?

Proposal:  Add an attribute "asciiAbbrev" for <organization>, to
provide abbreviated organization names in both ascii and non-ascii
contexts.

Implementation:  The current version of xml2rfc supports
"asciiAbbrev".

Levkowetz                 Expires 20 March 2022                [Page 15]
Internet-Draft        RFC7991 Implementation Notes        September 2021

Heather's indication 20 Jul 2019:  OK

3.1.12.2.  Attribute "showOnFrontPage"

Guidance from the IAB regarding IAB stream documents
(https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/iab-format.txt) indicates that
"'Each author's name SHOULD be listed without an organization.".  See
also xml2rfc ticket #311
(https://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/xml2rfc/trac/ticket/311).

In [RFC7991] there is no way to turn on or off the display of
<organization> on the front page, which would be needed for cases
when it is not wanted IAB documents to show such on the front page.
(Cases where display of <organization> is wanted is trivially
supported by the current code).

In order to make it possible to expressly control this for a
vocabulary version 3 XML document, version 2.21.0 of xml2rfc
introduces an attribute "showOnFrontPage", with default value "true".

This issue is tracked as github issue #36 (https://github.com/rfc-
format/draft-iab-xml2rfc-v3-bis/issues/36)

Heather's indication 20 Jul 2019: OK

3.1.13.  In Section 2.37, <postal>

The enhancement to <postal>, adding a <postalLine> element, is a fair
step on the way to permitting better representation of the wealth of
postal addresses around the globe which don't match the American

Unfortunately, it manages to throw the baby out with the bathwater by
constraining postalLine to be used only if none of the other elements
are used.  This makes it impossible to apply hCard [HCARD] labels
(based on vCard [RFC6350] properties) to the elements of an address,
as [RFC7992] requires.  Applying the schema from [RFC7991] would make
country information and hCard tags unavailable for any locality with
a postal address scheme that needs to use <postalLine> because it
does not match the American scheme.  This would make statistics such
as the author origin statistics either miss authors with such
addresses, or make the statistics harder to compile than is
necessary, and make for instance the data on this page skewed:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/stats/document/yearly/continent/

Levkowetz                 Expires 20 March 2022                [Page 16]
Internet-Draft        RFC7991 Implementation Notes        September 2021

The current implementation maps <postalLine> to the hCard property
"extended-address", and permits it to be used together with other
elements, in particular <country>, <region>, and <city>.  This is a
change to the schema.

The current implementation also provides a full set of hCard- and
<pobox>.  The hCard locality address component is mapped to the
current <city> element, however; not renamed to '<locality>'.

3.1.14.  In Section 2.40.2, "quoteTitle"

The version two xml2rfc processors already support the attribute
"quote-title".  The attribute name change introduces an
incompatibility.  This in particular impacts existing bibxml
reference files, which should work with both version 2 and 3
vocabulary documents.

Proposal:  Change the attribute name back to the value supported by
the vocabulary version 2 modes of xml2rfc.

Implementation:  The current version of xml2rfc converts "quote-
title" to "quoteTitle" during v2v3 conversion, but this is really
sub-optimal.

Heather's indication 20 Jul 2019:  OK

This issue is tracked as github issue #48 (https://github.com/rfc-
format/draft-iab-xml2rfc-v3-bis/issues/48)

3.1.15.  In Section 2.41, <referencegroup>

If <referencegroup> is to be used to represent for instance an STD
entries that consist of multiple RFCs, the STD itself will have an
URL.  It would be natural to represent that with a "target"
attribute, as for <reference>.

Proposal:  Add a "target" attribute for <referencegroup<, matching
the one for <reference<.

Implementation:  Implemented in xml2rfc v 2.18.0

Heather's indication 20 Jul 2019:  OK

Levkowetz                 Expires 20 March 2022                [Page 17]
Internet-Draft        RFC7991 Implementation Notes        September 2021

3.1.16.  In Section 2.42, <references>

The v3 schema cannot properly model multiple reference subsections
contained within one numbered section.  The v2 formatter handled this
by silently inserting an enclosing section, but with the introduction
of the preptool, which in theory should produce a master file from
which various formatters would produce equivalent results, this
becomes troublesome, as the automatic insertion of a container
section is specified for the HTML formatter, in section 9.8. of RFC
7992, but not for the text formatter.  It would be much better to
make the prepped xml explicitly show exactly what should be rendered,
and not rely on formatters silently insert elements.

Proposal:  Update the schema to make it possible for <references> to
contain <references>, and have the prepped xml explicitly show
both the encapsulating section and the subsections.

Resolution:  Accepted.

Heather's indication 20 Jul 2019:  OK

This issue is tracked as github issue #49 (https://github.com/rfc-
format/draft-iab-xml2rfc-v3-bis/issues/49)

3.1.17.  In Section 2.45.1, "category" Attribute

Changing the "category" attribute of <rfc> to a name value in an
additional <seriesInfo> makes it much harder than it needs to be to
look it up.  It also makes the semantics of <seriesInfo> less clear.

Proposal:  Remove this, and keep the "category" attribute on <rfc>

Implementation:  The "category" attribute on <rfc> has been kept in
the current version of xml2rfc, but the additional <seriesInfo> is
also generated during v2v3 conversion.  For purposes of
determining the category to render, the attribute on <rfc> is the
one used.

Heather's indication 20 Jul 2019:  OK

3.1.18.  In Section 2.45.3, "docName" Attribute

Changing the "docName" attribute of <rfc> to a name value in an
additional <seriesInfo> makes it much harder than it needs to be to
look it up.  It also makes the semantics of <seriesInfo> even less

Proposal:  Remove this, and keep the "docName" attribute on <rfc>

Levkowetz                 Expires 20 March 2022                [Page 18]
Internet-Draft        RFC7991 Implementation Notes        September 2021

Implementation:  The "docName" attribute on <rfc> has been kept in
the current version of xml2rfc.

Heather's indication 20 Jul 2019:  OK

3.1.19.  In Section 2.45.7, "number" Attribute

The RFC number attribute in the <rfc> element is used as a switch to
control whether an RFC or an Internet-Draft is produced.  Moving what
is effectively an important controlling switch for the operation of
the formatters from the main element down into what is arguably an
obscure combination of attribute values on a <seriesInfo> element
several levels down from the main element feels wrong.

Proposal:  Don't deprecate the number attribute on <rfc>, but require
that the preptool checks that the number attribute matches what's
in the <seriesInfo> set.  Explicitly mention that the presence of
the number attribute on <rfc> causes the generation of an RFC
rather than an Internet-Draft by the formatters.

Implementation:  In The current version of xml2rfc, the number
attribute on <rfc> is used to determine whether to produce an RFC
or Internet-Draft.  If <seriesInfo> elements are found, but no
<seriesInfo> with name="RFC" and value set to the number is found,
a warning is given.  If no <seriesInfo> elements are found, the
appropriate elements, including one giving the RFC number, is
inserted.

Heather's indication 20 Jul 2019:  OK

3.1.20.  In Section 2.46.2, "numbered" Attribute

The text indicates that only top-level sections may have
numbered="false", and that a section with numbered="false" may not
have a child section with numbered="true".  But that leaves no value
that is valid for child sections of an unnumbered section: They
cannot have numbered="false", since they are not top-level sections,
and they cannot have numbered="true", since the parent has
numbered="false".

Additionally, the prohibition against child sections having
numbered="false" removes the option of truncating the ToC listing for
some child sections; without providing a good explanation for this
limitation, it seems arbitrary and counter-intuitive to disallow this
feature.

Proposal:  Permit sections which are not top-level sections to have
numbered="false".

Levkowetz                 Expires 20 March 2022                [Page 19]
Internet-Draft        RFC7991 Implementation Notes        September 2021

Implementation:  In The current version of xml2rfc, child sections
may have numbered="false".

Heather's indication 20 Jul 2019:  OK

3.1.21.  In Section 2.47, <seriesInfo>

3.1.21.1.  Too many possible combinations

The possible and forbidden combinations of attributes for this
element has now become so convoluted that it's really hard to
understand how to use it correctly.  This needs a serious
reconsideration.  New usages, with the purpose of replacing various
attributes on the <rfc> element, have been added without any
consistent pattern or table of permitted and forbidden combinations
of values and attributes.

3.1.21.2.  The "name" Attribute

The 'name' attribute is mandatory, and only 3 values are permitted:
"RFC", "Interned-Draft", and "DOI", according to RFC 7991.  But it is
also mandatory to set the name to "" for a <seriesInfo> with a status
attribute.  Hmm...

So there are 4, not 3 permitted values: "RFC", "Internet-Draft",
"DOI", and "".

This means that all reference files which has things like name="ISO",
name="W3C Recommendation", etc., etc., in the current reference
library have have become illegal.

3.1.21.3.  Incompatibility between v2 and v3 schema

The placement of <seriesInfo> elements within <reference> has changed
in the v3 schema, in that it has been pulled into <front>, and the v2
placement has been deprecated.  But this makes 'bibxml' reference
files produced according to the v3 schema incompatible with v2
processors, and would require us to maintain 2 separate quotation
libraries.

3.1.21.4.  Inappropriate Introduction of the "stream" Attribute

The v3 specification in [RFC7991] introduces two new attributes with
semantic content, in addition to the ASCII versions of the pre-
existing "name" and "value" attributes: "stream" and "status".

Levkowetz                 Expires 20 March 2022                [Page 20]
Internet-Draft        RFC7991 Implementation Notes        September 2021

The intention seems to be to deprecate attributes on <rfc>.  However,
these attributes cannot have multiple values for a document, which
makes the move to <seriesInfo>, which can occur multiple times,
dubious.

3.1.21.5.  Summary

The number of issues introduced with the move of the <seriesInfo>
element and its re-purposing in order to fill functionality in the
front of a document is wholly disproportionate with any added
functionality.  The specification [RFC7991] does not provide any
rationale for the changes, and there seems to be no major benefits to
the new schema.

Proposal:  Do a rewrite of this that does not add new details to the
already complex <seriesInfo> semantics, compared to the v2
vocabulary, and does not make non-IETF reference files obsolete,
but actually simplifies the model and use.

Limit the <seriesInfo> element to what is actually needed for use
within <reference/>, and do not add new functionality related to
the document <front>.  Deprecate any functionality not related to
usage within <reference/>.

The easiest approach would be to simply revert to the v2 semantics
and placement of <seriesInfo> elements, with documentation of
that.

Implementation:  The current implementation does not strip or
disregard the attributes on <rfc>; apart from that the schema is
not reverted to v2 in the current implementation, but see also
Section 3.1.17, Section 3.1.19 and Section 3.2.2.

Heather's indication 20 Jul 2019:  Starred, rewrite needed in order
to simplify and clean this up.

3.1.22.  In Section 2.48, <sourcecode>

The specification is not clear on emitting <CODE BEGINS> and <CODE
ENDS> automatically when rendering <sourcecode>.  In some cases it
would be helpful, in others not.

Proposal:  Add an attribute 'markers' for <sourcecode>, to control
the emission of <CODE BEGINS> and <CODE ENDS>.  If markers="true"
and the "name" attribute is set, the filename will also be
emitted, as specified in [RFC8407] for YANG modules.

Implementation:  Implemented as proposed in the current version of

Levkowetz                 Expires 20 March 2022                [Page 21]
Internet-Draft        RFC7991 Implementation Notes        September 2021

xml2rfc.

Heather's indication 20 Jul 2019:  OK

3.1.23.  In Section 2.53.3 and 2.53.4.

3.1.23.1.  Unnecessary limitation on the use of "keepWithNext"

Why keepWithNext only on <t>?  It would be very natural to expect to
be able to say keepWithNext for 2 tables, or 2 figures, or 2 lists,
or combinations thereof?

Proposal:  Permit keepWithNext on all elements that can be siblings
to <t>.

Implementation:  Not in the current version of xml2rfc.

Heather's indication 25 Jul 2019:  OK to implement.

3.1.23.2.  Violation of KISS and DRY principles

keepWithNext on one element is equivalent with keepWithPrevious on
the following element, provided the following element can have a
keepWithPrevious attribute.  Providing both violates both KISS [KISS]
and DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself) [DRY].

Proposal:  Keep only one of these two attributes, preferably
keepWithNext.

Implementation:  Not in the current version of xml2rfc.

Heather's indication 20 Jul 2019:  Undecided

3.1.24.  New Section 2.X, <u>

Thinking about being able to issue warnings both during xml2rfc
processing and when running idnits, it seems very hard to distinguish
between intentional and non-intentional inclusion of non-ASCII
characters in document text.

In addition to the problem of correctly detecting non-intentional use
of Unicode characters, there is also the issue (for authors) of
correctly converting given Unicode characters to one of the forms
recommended in [RFC7997], and the issue (for idnits) of verifying
that any Unicode characters or strings are correctly represented as
Unicode code-point values next to the literal character or string.

Levkowetz                 Expires 20 March 2022                [Page 22]
Internet-Draft        RFC7991 Implementation Notes        September 2021

One solution to this could be to not try to guess, or establish
heuristics, but instead use a v3 schema element with preptool
validation to ensure a straightforward solution to all the issues, as
follows:

Proposal: Limit the arbitrary placement of Unicode characters and
strings in the body of a document, and control the expansion of the
Unicode code-points by requiring that Unicode characters and strings
be placed within a specific element if they are to occur in the body
of a document.  Such an expansion is already mandated by Section 3.4
of [RFC7997]; but without schema support, it would be very hard for
tools to enforce this.  The text in Appendix A.1 is proposed for
inclusion in RFC 7991-bis as a new section.

Proposal:  Limit the arbitrary placement of Unicode characters and
strings in the body of a document, and control the expansion of
the Unicode code-points by requiring that Unicode characters and
strings be placed within a specific element if they are to occur
in the body of a document.  Such an expansion is already mandated
by Section 3.4 of [RFC7997]; but without schema support, it would
be very hard for tools to enforce this.  The text in Appendix A.1
is proposed for inclusion in RFC 7991-bis as a new section.

Implementation:  Implemented as described in Appendix A.1.

Heather's indication 20 Jul 2019:  Isn't this already required by
7997??

3.1.25.  In Section 2.63.2, <ul> "empty" attribute

In v2, this results in a list using space as the bullet, thus each
list entry is indented as with other bullet symbols.  However, this
leaves no way to get list entries with arbitrary text that are not
indented, in order to produce lists such as that used in Table of
Content and Index.

Furthermore, the specification does not indicate if <ul empty="true">
should be rendered with space as a bullet, or without any bullet and
indentation.  A clarification would be good.

Proposal:  Specify that in text output, <ul empty="true"> should be
rendered without any bullet and indentation.  In order to produce
unordered lists that are indented, the "bullet" attribute
mentioned in Section 3.1.10 with a whitespace bullet could be
used.

Heather's indication 25 Jul 2019:  OK

Levkowetz                 Expires 20 March 2022                [Page 23]
Internet-Draft        RFC7991 Implementation Notes        September 2021

Implementation:  The current version of xml2rfc introduces a new
attribute "bare" with the possible values "false" | "true" to
signal this.  The default is "true" (which differs from the
default v2 implementation).  Using the extra attribute "bare"
works, but is maybe clumsier than necessary.

Heather's indication 25 Jul 2019:  Questionable (see Section 3.1.10.1
for alternative approach.

3.1.26.  In Section 2.66.1, <xref> "format" attribute

3.1.26.1.  The "derivedContent" attribute

For items in an ordered list, the "derivedContent" attribute should
be set to the counter value for the item.  But that counter value is
only known during rendering.  How is this supposed to work?

Proposal:  In order to be able to set the "derivedContent" value, the
preptool actually has to work through the list and derive the
rendered counter.  If we accept this, [KISS] and [DRY] both points
in the direction of not discarding this value, but making a record
of it, in the same manner as we make a record of "derivedContent"
for <xref>.  To do this, add a "derivedCounter" for <li>, and fill
it in with the calculated counter value.

Implementation:  Implemented as proposed.

Heather's indication 25 Jul 2019:  OK

3.1.26.2.  Referencing a <dl> entry

It is specified that <xref> with format="counter" may reference
sections, figures, tables, or ordered lists; but there does not seem
to be any technical reason why this should not also be permitted for
definition lists.

Proposal:  Permit <xref> with format="counter" to also reference
entries in definition list entries.

Implementation:  Implemented as proposed.

Heather's indication 25 Jul 2019:  OK

Levkowetz                 Expires 20 March 2022                [Page 24]
Internet-Draft        RFC7991 Implementation Notes        September 2021

3.1.26.3.  Combined effects of <xref> text, and the "format" and
"sectionFormat" attributes.

If the <relref> functionality is folded into <xref> we are left with
two format attributes, "format" and "sectionFormat".  We then need to
clearly specify if and how they interact.  The following approach is
suggested:

The "format" attribute should have effect only on the content of the
internal link to the cited <reference> entry.  If the "sectionFormat"
attribute has a value of "bare", which does not cause any internal
link to be rendered, the "format" attribute has no effect (or,
possibly, is disallowed).

The "sectionFormat" attribute should have effect only on the
rendering of the external link part.  There is no "derivedSection"
attribute to match the "derivedFormat" attribute, the "section"
attribute value is used in combination with the "sectionFormat" value
when rendering the external link.

If an <xref> element with a "section" attribute value has text
content, the text content is only used in the rendering of the
internal link to the cited <reference>, with one exception: If the
"sectionFormat" attribute value is "bare", then the <xref> text
content is used to render a second external link in parentheses,
after the initial external link that shows the external section
number.

3.1.27.  In Section 3.3, <format>

The [RFC7991] text seems to be based on a misunderstanding of the
purpose of the <format> element in pointing to alternative
representations of a reference.  There seems to be no reason in
removing this ability.  The current implementation does not remove
alternative <format> entries when converting v2 to v3.  The RFC 7991
text should be adjusted accordingly, and in RFC 7992 it should be
specified how to render links to alternative formats for a reference.

Heather's indication on 25 Jul 2019: Detailed proposal needed.

3.1.28.  In Section 3.4.2, "hangIndent" Attribute

"Deprecated.  Use <dl> instead."

This causes capability loss.  The "hangIndent" attribute did not only
signal that hanging indent should be used, but also gave the size of
the indent.  No equivalent control has been provided for the <dl>
element in the version 3 vocabulary.

Levkowetz                 Expires 20 March 2022                [Page 25]
Internet-Draft        RFC7991 Implementation Notes        September 2021

Proposal:  Provide an attribute "indent" on <dl> as suggested in
Section 3.1.7.

Implementation:  Implemented as proposed.

Heather's indication 25 Jul 2019:  OK

3.1.29.  In Appendix C.  Relax NG schema

The "colspan" attribute is given a default value of "0", this should
be "1".  "0" is not otherwise defined in the text, and the only
reasonable interpretation would be to hide the cell (make it occupy
zero columns).

The "rowspan" attribute is given a default value of "0", this should
be "1".  "0" is not otherwise defined in the text, and the only
reasonable interpretation would be to hide the cell (make it occupy
zero rows).

Proposal:  Change the default values of "colspan" and "rowspan" to 1.

Implementation:  Done in the current version of xml2rfc.

Heather's indication 25 Jul 2019:  OK

3.1.30.  Use of the term "counter".

The classical meaning of this term is a a monotonically increasing
sequence of integers, globally unique or unique within a context.  In
this document, it is instead meant to indicate section, table, figure
numbers, which for sections are not plain counters.

To make more interesting, in other contexts in the document, the
notation "-nnn", which also would normally indicate a dash followed
by digits, i.e., a counter, is also re-interpreted to include section
numbers; strings of numbers including embedded period signs.  This is

Proposal:  Instead of "counter", use "number" as the attribute value,
and explicitly say "Section number, Figure number, Table number or
ordered list labels" in the description.  Use "-n.n" instead of
"-nnn".

Implementation:  Not in the current version of xml2rfc.

Heather's indication 25 Jul 2019:  Isn't "number" used for something
else?

Levkowetz                 Expires 20 March 2022                [Page 26]
Internet-Draft        RFC7991 Implementation Notes        September 2021

3.1.31.  In Section 2.44, <relref>

(This section is out of order so as to not change the section
numbering of previous sections while work is onging on a rfc7991bis
document.)

The <relref> element has functionality that extends <xref>, and at
first sight it is hard to distinguish the two.  It would be better to
remove <relref> and just add section, relative, and displayFormat to
<xref>.  Maybe change displayFormat to the earlier proposed
'sectionFormat'.  (This point is also made in Section 4.4.22)

Proposal:  Deprecate <relref>.

Implementation:  The current version of xml2rfc converts any
occurences of <relref> to the equivalent <xref> element.
Additional warnings about <relref> being deprecated would be in
order.

3.1.32.  In Section 2.66, <xref>

(This section is out of order so as to not change the section
numbering of previous sections while work is onging on a rfc7991bis
document.)

The <xref> element permits only plain text content, which limits how
it can be used with explicit text.  Permitting also <em>, <strong>,
<sub>, <sup>, and <tt> would make it possible to use the typographic
expressions permitted in otherwise in running text.  It also makes it
possible for <toc> entries to reflect these typographic elements.

Proposal:  Permit <em>, <strong>, <sub>, <sup>, and <tt> to be used
as children of <xref>

Implementation:  Implemented in the current version of xml2rfc.

3.1.33.  Contributor names

(This section is out of order so as to not change the section
numbering of previous sections while work is onging on a rfc7991bis
document.)

One thing that has been repeatedly requested both by the RPC and by
RFC authors is a way to include contributor information in documents,
also when the contributor names contain non-ASCII characters.  This
is applicable also for mention of names and possibly contact details
of other persons than contributors and authors (even if the
contributor case is the one that comes up most often).

Levkowetz                 Expires 20 March 2022                [Page 27]
Internet-Draft        RFC7991 Implementation Notes        September 2021

Proposal:  Permit a <contact> element to be used to provide name and
address information for persons that aren't authors.  This will
allow both non-ASCII and ASCII-equivalence name information to be
provided and rendered, in much the same way that author
information is rendered.

Implementation:  Implemented in the current version of xml2rfc.  The
<contact> element is allowed in two contexts: As a direct child of
<section>, where it will be rendered in the same manner that
author information is rendered in the Authors' Addresses section,
and as a child of <t>, where it will be rendered inline, in a
similar manner that author information is rendered in citations.

3.2.  RFC 7998

3.2.1.  New Section 5.1.6, Attribute validation

Some attribute validation beyond what the schema enforces is possible
and desirable.  One example of this is to validate that all
attributes which are expected to have integer values actually does
so.  A section on this should be added.  The current implementation
adds integer attribute validation and verification that apart from
the name attributes of <author>, no attribute values have non-ASCII
content.

Heather's indication 25 Jul 2019: Good idea!

3.2.2.  In Section 5.2.6, Attribute Default Value Insertion

The <seriesInfo> "stream" attribute has a default value of "IETF".
The effect of setting default values after the XInclude processing is
to set stream="IETF" on all reference <seriesInfo> which don't have a
stream set.  This is probably not right.

Proposal:  Remove the default value for the "stream" attribute from
the <seriesInfo> element in the v3 schema.

Implementation:  The current version of xml2rfc removes the default
value for the "stream" attribute of <seriesInfo> from the schema.
This is not a problem from a rendering perspecitve, since the
"stream" attribute does not need to have a value in order for the
<seriesInfo> to be rendered correctly (most instances of
<seriesInfo> in the current bibxml library does not have a
"stream" attribute set).

Levkowetz                 Expires 20 March 2022                [Page 28]
Internet-Draft        RFC7991 Implementation Notes        September 2021

3.2.3.  In Section 5.4.6, "pn" Numbering.

The list of elements that are given p- or paragraph tags is severely
limited, and since the presence of a pn= attribute is required in
order to make internal <xref> instances work, this limits the
elements to which it is possible to reference with HTML fragment
identifiers.  Why?  Why are <dt> and <li> present, but not <ol>,
<dl>, <ul>?

Proposal:  Permit and provide "pn" numbers of type 'paragraph-nnn'
for all block-level elements that don't have "pn" numbers
otherwise specified.

Implementation:  Not in the current version of xml2rfc, but the
current version adds p- numbering to <list>, <dl>, <dd>, <ol>,
<ul>, which all are allowed to have pn= attributes according to
the schema.

Heather's indication 25 Jul 2019:  OK

3.3.  Some attributes should have value type xsd:ID

In generated HTML, the values set for "pn" and "slugifiedName" will
be used as link targets, which makes a type of xsd:ID appropriate in
the input format, as this will guarantee that they all have distinct
values in the xml source.

Proposal:  Change the "pn" and "slugifiedName" to type xsd:ID.

Implementation:  Implemented in the current version of xml2rfc.

Heather's indication 25 Jul 2019:  OK

4.  Non-Schema Issues

4.1.  RFC 7991

4.1.1.  In Section 2.5.7, "type" Attribute

4.1.1.1.  How should a "src" attribute be handled when "type" is
missing.

The v3 schema does not require the 'type' attribute on <artwork> to
have a value, which makes sense when there's no <artwork> 'src'
attribute to include.  But if there is a 'src' attribute, but no
value for 'type', how should the 'src' value be handled?

Levkowetz                 Expires 20 March 2022                [Page 29]
Internet-Draft        RFC7991 Implementation Notes        September 2021

The easiest and most explicit handling would be to require a 'type'
value if there is a 'src' attribute; a more doubtful alternative
would be to use something like the Linux file magic command to try to
guess at the content type that 'src' points at.

Proposal:  Warn if there is a 'src' and no 'type' value, and ignore
the 'src' in that case.

Implementation:  The current version of xml2rfc implements this as
proposed.

Heather's indication 25 Jul 2019:  OK

4.1.1.2.  Missing information on how to handle various types

"The RFC Series Editor will maintain a complete list of the
preferred values on the RFC Editor web site, and that list is
expected to be updated over time.  Thus, a consumer of v3 XML
should not cause a failure when it encounters an unexpected type
or no type is specified.  The table will also indicate which type
of art can appear in plain-text output (for example, type="svg"
cannot)."

The RFC Series Editor has not yet provided such a table.  It is
definitely desired, in order to be able to deal correctly with plain-
text output.

Heather's indication 25 Jul 2019: TODO

4.1.2.  New Section 2.8.1: Index

There is no guidance on the structure of an index, if one is to be
generated by the preptool.

Proposal:  Please provide specification.

Implementation:  The current version of xml2rfc provides the
generation of index elements in the prepped XML, but makes no
claim on the generated XML being optimal.

Heather's indication 25 Jul 2019:  TODO

4.1.3.  In Section 2.17, <date>

4.1.3.1.  Current Date Requirement

Levkowetz                 Expires 20 March 2022                [Page 30]
Internet-Draft        RFC7991 Implementation Notes        September 2021

"When the prep tool is used to create Internet-Drafts, it will
reject a submitted Internet-Draft that has a <date> element in the
boilerplate for itself that is anything other than today."

It is not up to the format definition to set policy for acceptance or
rejection of draft submissions.  The matter is more complex than the
text assumes, see for instance datatracker issue #2422.  In addition
to being inappropriate, this text also quietly changes policy from
+/- 3 days to +/- 0 days, without saying that it updates RFC 4228
[RFC4228], which is the current specification of permissible dates in
draft submissions.  Finally, enforcing this would cause _a lot_ of
grief and problems.

Proposal:  Remove the section.

Implementation:  The current version of xml2rfc does not reject input
based on the value of <date>, but warns if the date is more than 3
days from the current date, in accordance with [RFC4228].

Heather's indication 25 Jul 2019:  OK

4.1.3.2.  Date Specification in References

"Bibliographic references: In dates in <reference> elements, the
date information can have prose text for the month or year.  For
example, vague dates (year="ca. 2000"), date ranges
(year="2012-2013"), non-specific months (month="Second quarter"),
and so on are allowed."

The text regarding prose text for month and year in bibliographic
references is not workable.  How should month and year be combined?
Some bibliographic references may have date text which requires year
first, others year last, and so on.  Mixing the described fuzziness
into the otherwise strict year, month, date format makes little sense
when the result of combining the year, month and date attributes
cannot be predictably and correctly rendered.

Proposal:  Instead of the current specification, permit either that
the <date> element may have text content, or an alternative
attribute to be used for rendering if year, month, or day cannot
be specified exactly.

Implementation:  The current version of xml2rfc permits the <date>
element to have text content, as an alternative to year, month,
and day attributes.

Levkowetz                 Expires 20 March 2022                [Page 31]
Internet-Draft        RFC7991 Implementation Notes        September 2021

4.1.4.  In Section 2.40.1, "anchor" Attribute

Section 5.1 of RFC 7992 says in part:

"The prep tool produces XML with anchor attributes in all elements
that need them."

This is rather vital information regarding the content of the prepped
xml when building a formatter, unfortunately it is not mentioned in
RFC 7991.

Proposal:  Add this information to the successor of RFC 7991, and to
the formatter specifications.

Heather's indication 25 Jul 2019:  OK

4.1.5.  In Section 2.48.4, "type" Attribute

Section 5.1 of RFC 7992 says in part:

"The prep tool produces XML with anchor attributes in all elements
that need them."

This is rather vital information regarding the content of the prepped
xml when building a formatter, unfortunately it is not mentioned in
RFC 7991.

Proposal:  Add this information to the successor of RFC 7991, and to
the formatter specifications.

Heather's indication 25 Jul 2019:  OK

4.1.6.  In Appendix A.1.1: TLP switch-over date discrepancies

There are discrepancies between the specified switch-over dates in
the specification, and those given by the Trust statements:

*  TLP3.0: The specification says 2009-11-01 but the TLP statement
says effective date 2009-09-12.

*  TLP4.0: The specification says 2010-04-01 but the TLP statement
says effective date 2009-12-28.  The dates on which TLP 4 started
to be use in published RFCs seems to match the stated effective
date of 2009-12-28, based on a scan of some RFCs around that date.

Levkowetz                 Expires 20 March 2022                [Page 32]
Internet-Draft        RFC7991 Implementation Notes        September 2021

RFC 7991 also states this about the pre5378 text: this text appears
under "Copyright Notice", unless the document was published before
November 2009, in which case it appears under "Status of This Memo".
This does not agree at all with what actual RFCs contain; they seem
to consistently have this text under Copyright Notice.

Proposal:  Correct the dates given in the document to indicate the
official dates, and correct the text on placement of TLP to match
actual usage.

Implementation:  The current version of xml2rfc uses the official
dates during the preptool processing, not the dates given in RFC
7991.

Heather's indication 25 Jul 2019:  OK

4.1.7.  In Appendix B.2.1: Generation of PN numbers

The current specification says:

-  "pn" for all elements not listed above always has the format
"p-nnn-mmm", where "nnn" is the section number and "mmm" is the
relative position in the section.  For example, this would be
"p-2.1.3-7" for the seventh part number in Section 2.1.3.

However, this will result in counting up the part numbers for
invisible parts, when numbered elements are contained within
enclosing numbered block elements.

The current implementation instead uses the same "pn" numbering
scheme as Julian Reschke's vocabulary v3 XSLT processor, where both
the section number part and the relative position within the section
has hierarchical numbering.  For instance, the second element in
Section 2.1 would have a pn number of "section-2.1-2", and assuming
it is a dl element, the first dt element within the dl in Section 2.1
would have a pn number of "section-2.1-2.1".

4.2.  RFC 7992

4.2.1.  In Section 5.1, IDs

The current specification says:

Levkowetz                 Expires 20 March 2022                [Page 33]
Internet-Draft        RFC7991 Implementation Notes        September 2021

HTML elements that are generated from XML elements that include an
"anchor" attribute will use the value of the "anchor" attribute as
the value of the "id" attribute of the corresponding HTML element.
The prep tool produces XML with "anchor" attributes in all
elements that need them.  Some HTML constructs (such as <section>)
will use multiple instances of these identifiers.

But I believe HTML5 does not permit more than one "id" attribute per
element, which begs the question of how <section> will use multiple
instances of identifiers?

4.2.2.  In Section 6.2, Root Element

Typo:

OLD: <seriesInfo> element's "name" attributes

NEW: <seriesInfo> elements' "name" attributes

4.2.3.  In Section 6.4, Page Headers and Footers

This is incomplete.  It gives an example, but does not specify how it
is to be filled in.

Is the formatter expected to fill out the cells, based on the pattern
given, or is that supposed to happen magically based on WD-
css3-page-20130314 ?

If the cell content is supposed to be provided by the formatter, it
would be good to have a bit more specification than the example; if
not, it would be nice for that to be stated explicitly.

The mention of the '[Page]' placeholder could be taken as an
indication that all cell content shown are placeholders, but are
they, really?

Implementation:  The current implementation has code to insert
placeholder HTML, but not code to fill in the cells with actual
information from the document.  Since this is meaningless if the
guess is wrong, this code has been disabled for now.

The current implementation insteads adds CSS that explicitly sets
the header and footer text to the desired values.

Heather's indication 25 Jul 2019:  Rewrite needed

Levkowetz                 Expires 20 March 2022                [Page 34]
Internet-Draft        RFC7991 Implementation Notes        September 2021

4.2.4.  In Section 6.5, Document Information

This information seems to be scrambled and incomplete.  It suggests
the use of 'Status:' for what is otherwise called 'Category:'.  It
simplifies the presentation of series information to the point that
no clue is given of how to handle the two bits of information related
to series name and series number -- the example shows 'Series:'
'Internet-Draft', which gives no guidance at all.  There is no
mention of whether to display 'Obsoletes:' and 'Updates:' information
or not.

On a more general note, this is the second section where an
incomplete example is provided instead of specification.  Examples
are however not replacements for proper specification; they are at
best a help in making a specification real to the user.  Both this
section and Section 4.2.3 needs to be expanded to provide a complete
specification.

Styling query: The example gives the style of the element that holds
author initials the class 'initial' while the attribute is
appropriately named 'initials'.  Is the difference in attribute and
style names intentional?  In any case, 'initials' would be more
appropriate.

Implementation:  Instead of trying to follow what's written, the
current implementation tries to provide the same fields and
information which is provided by the text/plain formatter, in a
sensible way.  This is guesswork.

The implementation also has used the sample HTML document for
guidance here, in order to be able to progress with something that
works with the style sheet from the RFC-Format CSS project.

Heather's indication 25 Jul 2019:  Rewrite needed

4.2.5.  In Section 8.1.1, Index Contents

The index has an extra <div> enclosing the contents, starting
directly after <h2>, while sections explicitly does not have a div
here.  This irregularity seems quite unnecessary, but makes the
formatter code more complex than need be.  Could we please align the
two?

Levkowetz                 Expires 20 March 2022                [Page 35]
Internet-Draft        RFC7991 Implementation Notes        September 2021

4.2.6.  Inconsistent use of "s-", "n-" and User-Supplied "id" Attributes

RFC 7991 [RFC7991] specifies an attribute "slugifiedName" on <name>,
but does not specify how it is to be used.  RFC 7998 [RFC7998]
specifies how to create these, but not how they should be used.  In
RFC 7992, slugified names, with an "n-" (or "name-") prefix, are
sometimes used on sections, sometimes not.  "s-" (or "section-") IDs
are sometimes used on <h2> and other header elements, sometimes on
paragraph, divs, asides, blockquotes etc.  Section 9.33 of [RFC7992]
even uses a reference to an "n-" ID that doesn't exist, although it
clearly should, based on the section name.  This is a mess.

Implementation:  The implementation consistently transfers the
"slugifiedName" attribute on <name> to an "id" attribute on the
<h2> or other header element generated from the name.
Section numbers ("s-" or "section-" values) from "pn" attributes
are consistently transferred to the <section>, <p> or other HTML
element generated from the XML element on which they appear.
User-supplied "anchor" attributes on XML elements are consistently
transferred to a <div> inside the HTML element generated from the
XML element with the anchor, encapsulating the content generated
from the XML element.

4.2.7.  In Section 9.2, <address>

The example reiterates an abbreviated form of the xml given under
<author>, as if there was no difference between the rendering of
<address> and <author>.  Furthermore, the example shows only
rendering of elements which are _not_ part of <address>; any
rendering of the elements contained within <address> is omitted.
This is misleading, in particular since rendering of the individual
child elements (<postal>, <phone> , <facsimile> , <email>, and <uri>)
_has_ been specified to have explicit renderings.

Given that the specification text is reasonable for author name and
org, but nonsense for the <address> element, the following text has
been assumed during implementation:

The <address> element will be rendered as a sequence of <div>
elements, each corresponding to a child element of <address>, and
enclosed in the same <address> element as the name, role, and
organization information.  Element classes will be taken from hCard
[HCARD], as specified on http://microformats.org/wiki/hcard.

This is the mapping used by xml2rfc from the address fields to hCard
properties:

Levkowetz                 Expires 20 March 2022                [Page 36]
Internet-Draft        RFC7991 Implementation Notes        September 2021

+====================+=================+==================+
| i18n address field | xml2rfc element | hCard property   |
+====================+=================+==================+
| -                  | <extaddr>       | extended-address |
+--------------------+-----------------+------------------+
| street_address     | <street>        | street-address   |
+--------------------+-----------------+------------------+
| sorting_code       | <sortingcode>   | postal-code      |
+--------------------+-----------------+------------------+
| postal_code        | <code>          | postal-code      |
+--------------------+-----------------+------------------+
| city_area          | <cityarea>      | locality         |
+--------------------+-----------------+------------------+
| city               | <city>          | locality         |
+--------------------+-----------------+------------------+
| country_area       | <region>        | country-area     |
+--------------------+-----------------+------------------+
| country_name       | <country>       | country-name     |
+--------------------+-----------------+------------------+
| -                  | <pobox>         | post-office-box  |
+--------------------+-----------------+------------------+

Table 1

4.2.8.  In Section 9.7.2, Authors of this Document

RFC 7997 gives the text separating the ASCII and non-ASCII address
information as "Additional contact information:".

RFC 7997 manages to convey the desired rendering order of ASCII and
non-ASCII address information without any americentric language, but
RFC 7992 talks about the non-ASCII version as 'fallback'.  As a non-
native English speaker raised speaking and writing 2 languages that
both have alphabets with non-ASCII letters, the author of this memo
finds the language in RFC 7992 somewhat offensive, and suggests that
it be removed from the document.

The current xml2rfc implementation uses the layout and wording given
in RFC 7997, not RFC 7992.

Furthermore, the document also says:

"When the <author> element, or any of its descendant elements, has
any attribute that starts with "ascii", all of the author
information is displayed twice. ..."

Levkowetz                 Expires 20 March 2022                [Page 37]
Internet-Draft        RFC7991 Implementation Notes        September 2021

This is in conflict with [RFC7997], Section 3.2, which indicates that
the determining factor for displaying both non-ASCII and ASCII author
information is whether a script outside the Unicode Latin blocks is
used for the primary information.  The current implementation checks
for this, rather than going by the presence of attributes with an
'ascii' prefix.

4.2.9.  In Section 9.7.3, Authors of References

Information is completely missing on how to render non-ascii name
information in references.

4.2.10.  In Section 9.16, <cref>

The text does not mention how to deal with <cref>s with
display="false".  Presumably by not displaying them; but if there
exists internal links to the <cref> anchor, completely omitting the
rendering could cause breakage.  The current xml2rfc implementation
handles this by inserting an empty HTML <span> with the appropriate
id attribute.

4.2.11.  In Section 9.24, <eref>

No handling is provided for the case where the <eref> element is
empty, which would result in an empty (and invisible) HTML <a>
element.  The current implementation in this case instead inserts a
span containing '<', an <a> with appropriate href and the target URL
as text, and '>'.

4.2.12.  In Section 9.25, <figure>

The specified HTML rendering will result in a figure title text which
links to itself.  With the caption placed below the figure, this
means that if you click on the title, the figure will scroll up above
the browser window.  This is not particularly useful.

The current implementation instead inserts an empty <span> as the
first element of the figure, and gives it an id attribute with the
value set to the slugifiedName attribute of the <name> element, in
order to make the link from the figure caption text useful.

4.2.13.  In Section 9.27, <iref>

The text refers to the "irefid" attribute.  Interpreted as meaning
the "pn" attribute, as the schema has no "irefid" attribute.

Levkowetz                 Expires 20 March 2022                [Page 38]
Internet-Draft        RFC7991 Implementation Notes        September 2021

4.2.14.  In Section 9.33, <note>

Typo: s/"yes"/"true"/

4.2.15.  In Section 9.34, <ol>

The <ol> element has no "style" attribute.  The implementation

4.2.16.  In Section 9.35, <organization>

The text here is in conflict with RFC 7997 with respect to rendering
the Authors' Addresses section.  RFC 7997 describes rendering two
sets of full information, one ASCII and one non-ASCII, not a single
<div> where the non-ASCII name is given first, followed by the ASCII
version as needed.

4.2.17.  In Section 9.36, <phone>

The text here is in conflict with the use of 'type' in vCard and
hCard.  Telephone number type annotations identify things like 'Home'
and 'Work'.  The current implementation does not add the uppercase
VOICE type annotation.

4.2.18.  In Section 9.37, <postal>

The current specification says:

This element renders as an HTML <div> with CSS class "adr", unless
it contains one or more <postalLine> child elements; in which
case, it renders as an HTML <pre> element with CSS class "label".

Handling <postalLine> elements this way violates the hCard [HCARD]
specification.  They will instead be rendered as hCard elements with
class "extended-address" within the same <div> with CSS class "adr"
as other <postal> sub-elements.

The specification continues to enforce American postal address
structure on addresses that don't use <postalLine>.  This has been
changed in the current implementation; instead of using the fixed
American layout for all countries, the formatting has been adapted to
use country-specific formatting for all recognised country names and
codes.

( The implementer considered applying a non-US postal address layout
for all US addresses, to see how swiftly this would raise hue and cry
and be labelled a bug, but in the interest of not causing unnecessary
upset resisted the urge. )

Levkowetz                 Expires 20 March 2022                [Page 39]
Internet-Draft        RFC7991 Implementation Notes        September 2021

4.2.19.  In Section 9.40, <reference>

Section 9.41 of [RFC7992] shows <referencegroup> being rendered as
<dt>, <dd>, while the example for this section shows one reference
being rendered as <dl> <dt> <dd> </dl>.  This is contradictory.
Which one is right?  The CSS class on <dl>, which is specified as
class="reference" points in the direction that each individual
<reference> entry should be rendered as one <dl> with one set of <dt>
<dd>, while it would seem much more logical to render the list of
references as one single list holding all the references.

The current xml2rfc implementation renders <references> as a section
containing one <dl>, and each individual <reference> or
<referencegroup> as a <dt> <dd> pair within that list.  To match
this, the CSS class used is 'references' rather than 'reference'.

4.2.19.2.  Anchor handling disregards <displayreference>

There is no mention in the description of the HTML rendering of
<reference> of the effects of <displayreference>, which definitely
needs to be considered.  Emitting the original anchor value from the
reference entry (which often comes from the bibxml reference library)
would make the emitted reference labels wrong when there is a
<displayreference> entry for the reference.  The most straightforward
approach would be to add an attribute "derivedAnchor" to <reference>
and have the preptool set it.

Proposal:  Add an attribute "derivedAnchor" to <reference>.  Specify
in [RFC7998] that this is set by the preptool, and update
[RFC7991] and [RFC7992] accordingly.

Implementation:  Implemented as proposed.

4.2.19.3.  Handling of author lists in <reference> is under-specified

The example shows the 'and' between author names within a span
(unclear why) but does not show how to handle commas separating
authors.  The style examples on github do not enclose commas or 'and'
in a span, which seems reasonable.  Going with the style example
files here.  Section 9.7.3 of RFC 7992 gives an example without 'and'
enclosed in a span, contradicting Section 9.40 of the same RFC.

Levkowetz                 Expires 20 March 2022                [Page 40]
Internet-Draft        RFC7991 Implementation Notes        September 2021

Trying to sort out the rendering of author names in references by
looking at other sources than RFC 7992 reveals that the CSS samples
show dual reference entries, one with ascii names and another with
non-ascii names.  This contradicts RFC 7997, which shows a single
reference entry where the non-ascii author names are given with the
ascii equivalent in parentheses.

The current implementation follows RFC 7997 in this respect, not RFC
7992.

4.2.20.  In Section 9.41, <referencegroup>

This element is a sibling to <reference>, and <reference> is
described as being rendered as a <dl> with one set of <dt>, <dd>
child elements.

However, <referencegroup> is specified to be rendered as a <dt>, <dd>
set, *without* any containing <dl>.  The individual reference entries
are then specified to be rendered as <div>s inside the <dd>

1.  This produces invalid HTML, because there is no containing <dl>

2.  Why isn't this rendered as a <dl> with multiple <dd> entries?
That would make the styling much more consistent.

4.2.21.  In Section 9.42, <references>

The specification says that this is to be rendered as a <section>.
However, if <reference>s and <referencegroup>s are to be rendered as
<dt>, <dd>, then this element needs to be rendered as <section> <dl>
... </dl> </section>

4.2.22.  In Section 9.54, <table>

RFC 7992 says: "This element is directly rendered as its HTML
counterpart."

This ignores the special processing needed to insert a <caption>
element.  The current implementation handles this appropriately.  The
specification should be updated.

4.2.23.  In Section 9.56, <td>

RFC 7992 says: "This element is directly rendered as its HTML
counterpart."

Levkowetz                 Expires 20 March 2022                [Page 41]
Internet-Draft        RFC7991 Implementation Notes        September 2021

However, that is not correct.  An appropriate style class needs to be
inserted to honour the "align" attribute.  The classes "alignLeft",
"alignCenter", and "alignRight" of the provided CSS are geared
towards block alignment; here text alignment is needed.  The current
implementation uses "text-left", "text-center", and "text-right", and
provides appropriate CSS entries.  (These attribute names matches the
equivalent bootstrap names.)

4.2.24.  In Section 9.58, <th>

RFC 7992 says: "This element is directly rendered as its HTML
counterpart."

However, that is not correct.  An appropriate style class needs to be
inserted to honour the "align" attribute.  The classes "alignLeft",
"alignCenter", and "alignRight" of the provided CSS are geared
towards block alignment; here text alignment is needed.  The current
implementation uses "text-left", "text-center", and "text-right", and
provides appropriate CSS entries.  (These attribute names matches the
equivalent bootstrap names.)

4.2.25.  In Section 9.60, <title>

This section completely lacks specification on how to render title
elements with non-Latin content and an "ascii" attribute.

4.2.26.  In Section 9.66, <xref>

The specification says:

... If the "format" attribute has the value "default", and the
"target" attribute points to a <reference> or <referencegroup>
element, then the generated <a> element is surrounded by square
brackets in the output.

However, inspection of actual usage indicates that a better rendering
would be to surround the generated <a> with square brackets only for
empty <xref> elements; when there is content, usage indicates that
authors provide enclosing parentheses or not depending on
circumstances.  Since in HTML rendering the brackets are not
necessary to provide a clue that this refers to other content (unlike
the text case), the square brackets could be omitted when the <xref>
element contains text.  The current implementation does so.

Levkowetz                 Expires 20 March 2022                [Page 42]
Internet-Draft        RFC7991 Implementation Notes        September 2021

4.2.27.  In Section 9.18, <dd>

(This section is out of order so as to not change the section
numbering of previous sections while work is onging on a rfc7991bis
document.)

The text does not mention pilcrow insertion.  Having pilcrows on
other list items, but not on this one turns out to be surprising to
users.  Applying the same text about pilcrow insertion as for other
list entries seems indicated: "If there is no contained element that
has a pilcrow (Section 5.2) attached, a pilcrow is added."

4.3.  RFC 7994

*  <aside>: Guidance requested on the rendering.  Now rendered with
an indentation of 9 relative to surrounding text

*  <blockquote>: Guidance requested on the rendering.  Now rendered
with an indentation of 3 spaces, pipe(|), two spaces relative to
surrounding text.

*  <sub>: Guidance requested.  Now rendered as _(text)

*  <sup>: Guidance requested.  Now rendered as ^(text)

*  <tt>: Guidance requested.  Now rendered as "text"

*  Guidance for <eref> rendering.  In the HTML formatter, handling of
<eref> is straightforward and is specified; it simply translates
to an external link.  In the legacy text formatter, <eref> was
handled by inserting an extra <references> subsection called
"URLs", and adding reference entries for the URLs there, while the
<eref> citation point got a trailing numeric reference number.
With the preptool output becoming the authoritative published
document, this difference won't be reflected in the xml.  The two
formats would be more aligned if the text formatter renders <eref>
URLs inline.

Proposal:  Change the rendering of <eref> in text to render the
URL inline within parentheses instead of adding the 'URLs'
reference subsection.

Implementation:  Implemented in the current version of xml2rfc.

4.4.  RFC 7998

Levkowetz                 Expires 20 March 2022                [Page 43]
Internet-Draft        RFC7991 Implementation Notes        September 2021

4.4.1.  In Section 5.2.3, <date> Insertion

Error if any of year, month, day is missing:

It is an unnecessary and unwanted restriction when not in RFC
processing mode to given an error for missing date elements.  Missing
date elements have been permitted because they make it easier for
draft authors to rev drafts without having to pay attention to the
date values every time they generate new output.  This requirement
should apply only to RFC prepping mode, and only in part:

In RFC processing mode, this implicitly changes the RFC-Editor policy
regarding publication dates, which earlier have specified only year
and month (except for April 1st RFCs).  Is this intentional?

Proposal:  Remove this restriction for draft mode, and modify it to
require only year and month in RFC mode.

Implementation:  The current version of xml2rfc warns if not all
three elements are present in RFC mode.  The tool author considers
even this inappropriate.

In Internet-Draft mode, the current implementation handles missing
elements the same way that the v2 formatters do.

4.4.2.  In Section 5.2.4, "prepTime" Insertion

This is under-specified, given the detailed requirements on the
<date> attributes.  Should probably be specified as format according
to [RFC3339], with year, month, day, hour, minute, and second.

Proposal:  Specify the format as RFC3339 compliant with resolution at
least down to a second.

Implementation:  Implemented as RFC3339 with year, month, and day up
to version 2.10.3; changed to the proposal above in the next
release.

4.4.3.  In Section 5.2.6, Attribute Default Value Insertion

All the default values in 7991 are also expressed in the v3.rnc
schema.  Remove text indicating otherwise.  And by the way, it was
very helpful to extract these from the schema programmatically;
having them specified otherwise would make it much harder to follow a
changing schema.

Levkowetz                 Expires 20 March 2022                [Page 44]
Internet-Draft        RFC7991 Implementation Notes        September 2021

A number of attributes which are deprecated have default values.  The
current specification will cause those to be inserted, even if they
have been removed earlier by the v2v3 converter because they are
deprecated.  This seems inconsistent.

Proposal:  Omit deprecated attributes from the default-setting.

Implementation:  Not in the current version of xml2rfc.

4.4.4.  In Section 5.2.7, "toc" Attribute

It's specified that sections with <boilerplate> ancestors should have
toc="exclude", but this won't then affect <boilerplate> sections
which are inserted as part of the processing in 5.4.2.  It would make
more sense to move this processing to after 5.4.2.

The logic in the second bullet is flawed.  First it says to set
elements with children with toc="include" to "include", but then it
says that it is an error if they are set to "exclude".  Either there
should be a warning, and the toc= attribute should be updated, or
there should be an error and termination.  Not both.

Proposal:  Move 5.2.7 processing to after 5.4.2, or specify that a
second pass should be done after boilerplate insertion.  If a
parent to a section with toc="include" has toc="exclude", an error
should be generated.

Implementation:  In order to do the actions of 5.2.7 for boilerplate,
a second pass is made after boilerplate insertion in the current
version of xml2rfc.  Handling of inconsistent "toc" attribute
settings is implemented as proposed.

4.4.5.  In Section 5.2.8, "removeInRFC" Warning Paragraph

This potentially inserts a new <t> element, but after the default
setting in 5.2.6.

Proposal:  Maybe place default setting after all potential element
insertions have taken place.

Implementation:  The current version of xml2rfc deals with this by
adding default-setting of attributes individually on each new
elements as they are inserted.  This works, but is more complex
and probably less efficient than doing default-setting once, after
any new elements have been inserted.

4.4.6.  In Section 5.3.1, "month" Attribute

Levkowetz                 Expires 20 March 2022                [Page 45]
Internet-Draft        RFC7991 Implementation Notes        September 2021

"Normalise the values of "month" attributes in all <date> elements
in <front> elements in <rfc> elements to numeric values."

Is that 'in' a direct descendant relationship, or any descendant?
I.e., does this affect <date> elements in included <reference>
elements?  Unclear.  (RFC7991 is much clearer on this point, but
that's not an excuse for being unclear here).

Proposal:  Clarify the text.

4.4.7.  In Section 5.3.2, ASCII Attribute Processing

The uppercasing of 'ascii' in the section <name> is incorrect in this
case; the attribute name is explicitly 'ascii', not 'ASCII'.  The
section name should be '"ascii" Attribute Processing'.

Proposal:  Change the title 'ASCII Attribute Processing' to refer
correctly to the "ascii" attribute: '"ascii" Attribute
Processing'.

"In every <author> element ..."

After the earlier XInclude processing, this will include all the
author elements in the included references, which the document author
should not normally change in any way.  Was this the intention?

Proposal:  Limit it to /rfc/front/author' elements.

Implementation:  Implemented in the current version of xml2rfc.

<title> and <postalLine> also has an "ascii" attribute - is it a
mistake that they are not mentioned here?  Assuming so, for the
preptool implementation.

What about the ascii* attributes on author?  Assuming they should be
processed the same way.

Proposal:  Process all "ascii" attributes in the document <front> as
specified, and ignore those within <references>

Implementation:  Implemented as proposed.

4.4.8.  New Section 5.3.4: "keepWithNext" Normalisation

Proposal:  The new section should specify normalisation of
keepWithNext/keepWithPrevious such as to replace all
keepWithPrevious with an equivalent keepWithNext on the previous
element, in case the proposal in Section 3.1.23.2 is not accepted.

Levkowetz                 Expires 20 March 2022                [Page 46]
Internet-Draft        RFC7991 Implementation Notes        September 2021

Implementation:  Not in the current version of xml2rfc.

4.4.9.  In Section 5.4.2, <boilerplate> Insertion: Only for RFCs?

"Create a <boilerplate> element if it does not exist.  If there
are any children of the <boilerplate> element, produce a warning
that says "Existing boilerplate being removed.  Other tools,
specifically the draft submission tool, will treat this condition
as an error" and remove the existing children."

Should this be done in both I-D mode and RFC mode?  The trouble is
that the following subsections only describes the boilerplate
relevant to an RFC; there's additional boilerplate that is needed for
drafts.  I don't think it's reasonable to have a draft with only
parts of the boilerplate contained in a boilerplate section.

Proposal:  The boilerplate-element insertion parts of 5.4.2 should be
done in both RFC and draft mode, with the appropriate boilerplate
for each case.  For consistency, either add text to describe the
appropriate boilerplate for drafts, or remove the sections
specific to RFC boilerplate.

Implementation:  The current version of xml2rfc inserts boilerplate
for both drafts and RFCs, as appropriate.

4.4.10.  In Section 5.4.2, <boilerplate> Insertion: Error Message

This section also specifies an error message to be used verbatim; the
troublesome thing is that it's not clear what it means.  The message
is: "Existing boilerplate being removed.  Other tools, specifically
the draft submission tool, will treat this condition as an error".
What is it that the draft submission tool is going to treat as an
error?  The presence of boilerplate?  Why?  The removal of
boilerplate?  How is that related to draft submission?  This is very
jumbled.

Proposal:  If existing boilerplate is found, issue a warning and
replace it.

For other tools, suggest that if boilerplate is present during
draft submission, it should be checked for validity.  This is
already a function of idnits, so does not constitute anything new,
but is decidedly better than having the submission tool actually
reach into the submitted document and change it.

Implementation:  In the current version of xml2rfc this is

Levkowetz                 Expires 20 March 2022                [Page 47]
Internet-Draft        RFC7991 Implementation Notes        September 2021

implemented as proposed, with the following warning if existing
boilerplate is found: "Expected no <boilerplate> element, but
found one.  Replacing the content with new boilerplate."

4.4.11.  In Section 5.4.2.1, Compare submissionType and <seriesInfo>
"stream".

This comes too late.  It is specified that if either is missing, it
should be added.  But the default attribute setting earlier has set
stream="IETF" on all <seriesInfo> elements that didn't have it.  If a
document is read without submissionType, and stream set correctly to
something else than "IETF" on one of the <seriesInfo> elements, then
the default-setting will have created a conflict which cannot be
resolved purely from the document at this point.

Furthermore, it doesn't seem like a good fit to have tag attributes
that all have to be set to the same value.  This is not according to
[DRY], and unnecessarily introduces the possibility of conflict, as a
result of multiple <seriesInfo> elements being permitted (Relevant to
the v3 schema, not the preptool).

Proposal:  Remove the default value for stream, and make it
subordinate to submissionType.

Implementation:  The current version of xml2rfc implements the
specification as written, and produces errors (which lead to not
producing an output document) on inconsistencies.  This does not
feel user-friendly.

4.4.12.  In Section 5.4.2.2, "Status of this Memo" Insertion

It specifies that one should consider both submissionType and
<seriesInfo> stream value; but those have just been set equal in
5.4.2.1.

Proposal:  Remove <seriesInfo> from consideration here.  In order to
produce a correct "Status of this Memo" text, "category",
"consensus", and "submissionType" must be considered, and all
three are present as attributes on <rfc>.  Keep it that way.

Implementation:  The current version of xml2rfc looks at
"submissionType", "category", and "consensus" on the <rfc>
element.

4.4.13.  In Section 5.4.3, <reference> "target" Insertion

"Insert "target" attributes for RFC, DOI, and Internet-Draft
references that lack them."

Levkowetz                 Expires 20 March 2022                [Page 48]
Internet-Draft        RFC7991 Implementation Notes        September 2021

It is indicated that the rfc-editor will provide the URL patterns.
What are they?

In the formatter, the order of <seriesInfo> determines the rendering
order.  The insertion should probably be done in the desired
rendering order.

Proposal:  In addition to providing the appropriate URL patterns,
specify the order in which the <seriesInfo> elements should occur,
for instance: 'BCP', 'RFC', 'DOI'.

Implementation:  The current version of xml2rfc inserts the
appropriate <seriesInfo> elements, and after insertion sorts them
in the order 'BCP', 'RFC', 'DOI', followed by others.

4.4.14.  In Section 5.4.4, <name> Slugification

The 'n-' prefix for slugs is unnecessarily opaque.

Proposal:  Use slugs with prefix "name-" rather than "n-", to be more
self-documenting.

Implementation:  Implemented as proposed in the current version of
xml2rfc.

Should the slugs be unique?  Assuming yes, but guidance would be
good.  The current version of xml2rfc enforces unique slugs, with the
following algorithm:

*  remove non-ascii letters

*  replace-non-letters with dash, compacting multiple dashes to one

*  reduce length to 32, but insure uniqueness by increasing length or
adding numerical suffixes, up to length 40 with suffixes numbered
2 to 99.

Proposal:  Do slugification and uniqueness enforcement as described
above.

Implementation:  As described above.

4.4.15.  In Section 5.4.6, "pn" Numbering.

What does 'pn' mean?  Cryptic is never good when humans have to deal
with it.  At least explain as "part number" in text.  Possibly even
change pn="" to part="".

Levkowetz                 Expires 20 March 2022                [Page 49]
Internet-Draft        RFC7991 Implementation Notes        September 2021

<back><section> is not mentioned.  Assuming numbering as section-
appendix.1.2

<iref> elements are not mentioned (but covered in 7991).  Should be
listed in 7998.

The numbering scheme is inconsistent between notes/boilerplate and
other sections, in that if attempting to split a pn on dashes (which
external tools might want to do) the boilerplate/note sections
contain an additional dash.

Proposal:  Change that dash to a dot, for better consistency with
other sections.  This also makes the <t> part numbers less
confusing: "section-boilerplate.1-1" instead of "section-
boilerplate-1-1"

Implementation:  Implemented as proposed in the current version of
xml2rfc.

4.4.15.1.  RFC format anchors / fragment identifiers

The anchor prefixes described unnecessarily break with existing links
to document sections.  Wikipedia has (2018-02-19) about 84 000 pages
that link to RFCs; with most pages having multiple links.  A small
manual sampling indicates that about 1 link in 10 has a #section-
fragment identifier.  All of these will break if the new tools are
used to generated content linked from these pages.

How much larger than Wikipedia is the whole of the internet, in terms
of links to RFCs?  Hard to tell (though searching for 'rfc' on Google
indicates 'about 10 000 000 results).  In any case, we are talking
about breaking a substantial number of links using fragment
identifiers of the format #section- and #appendix- if the new tools
are used to replace the old HTML content that sites currently point
to.

Proposal:  Update the RFC 7998 preptool to use these prefixes,

*  "section-xxx"

*  "figure-xxx"

*  "table-xxx"

*  "appendix-xxx"

*  "index-xxx"

Levkowetz                 Expires 20 March 2022                [Page 50]
Internet-Draft        RFC7991 Implementation Notes        September 2021

*  "para-xxx"

*  "name-xxx"

Implementation:  Implemented as above in the current version of
xml2rfc.

4.4.16.  In Section 5.4.7, <iref> Numbering

Numbering of <iref> talks about setting the 'pn' attribute.  Mixed
into this is a mention of 'irefid', which isn't a valid attribute.
The current implementation assumes that 'pn' is meant.

The item and sub-item text is not constrained to slug format; in
order to deliver useful pn values, slugification should be done.  On
the other hand, the explicit prescription of how to ensure uniqueness
clashes with the total lack of uniqueness attention under 5.4.4.

Proposal:  Require slugification for pn-numbering of items and sub-
items, but remove the details of how to ensure uniqueness.
Correct the mention of 'irefid' to say 'pn', if that was intended.

Implementation:  Slugification is done, and uniqueness is enforced
with an algorithm that limits slug length and tries to keep slugs
readable.  If there are more than 99 slugs that would collide if
no uniqueness processing was done, an error is generated.

4.4.17.  In Section 5.4.8.1, "derivedContent" Insertion (with Content)

This section is problematic.  It says:

For each <xref> element that has content, fill the
"derivedContent" with the element content, having first trimmed
the whitespace from ends of content text.  Issue a warning if the
"derivedContent" attribute already exists and has a different
value from what was being filled in.

On the surface, it seems to replace the effect of using <xref> with
format="none" under vocabulary version 2, but in practice it blocks
the combination of generated text (say a section number fetched from
the referenced section) with author-provided text, since any author-
provided text will preempt generated text that is based on the
"format" attribute with the author-provided text.

Additionally, and in one sense just as bad, it violates the principle
of least surprise [POLA], since it is a fundamental change from how
text inside the <xref> element was combined with generated text in
version 2.

Levkowetz                 Expires 20 March 2022                [Page 51]
Internet-Draft        RFC7991 Implementation Notes        September 2021

Implementation:  As of xml2rfc 2.19.0, the expansion of <xref> and
its variation based on "format" attribute settings has been
reverted to be more in line with version two, and more regular.
The attribute setting format="none" is honoured again, and if the
<xref> element has text content, it is combined with the content
derived from the format attribute setting, rather than simply
overriding it, as was the consequence of Section 5.4.8.1 of
[RFC7998].

*  Derived content is generated based on the format attribute

*  If text content is provided, it is shown together with any
derived content

*  If the <xref> target is a listed reference, the derived content
is shown within square brackets

*  If the <xref> target is not a listed reference , the derived
content is shown within parentheses if there is text content,
and without parentheses if not.

*  If text content is provided, and is identical with the derived
content, it is ignored.

This addresses github issue #17 (https://github.com/rfc-format/draft-
iab-xml2rfc-v3-bis/issues/17).

4.4.18.  In Section 5.4.8.2, "derivedContent" Insertion (without
Content)

There's a formatting mistake:

The last sentence of the last bullet ("Issue a warning...") should
not be part of the bullet, but a separate final paragraph for the
Section.

4.4.19.  In Section 5.5.1, <artwork> Processing

RFC791 specifies that the <artwork> content is a fallback if there is
external <svg> content, but 7998 says to drop the fallback and insert
the external <svg>.  This deletes information, and makes the fallback
unavailable.  This needs a better handling.

Proposal:  If there is fallback content, convert the external URL
content to a "data:" URL for the src.  This pulls the external
content in and makes it immutable, but retains the fallback text.

Levkowetz                 Expires 20 March 2022                [Page 52]
Internet-Draft        RFC7991 Implementation Notes        September 2021

Implementation:  Implemented as proposed in the current version of
xml2rfc.

4.4.20.  In Section 5.5.2, <sourcecode> Processing

List item 4 says:

"fill the content of the <sourcecode> element with the resolved
XML from the URI in the "src" attribute"

However, we have no particular reason to assume that the content of
the "src" URL is XML.  Quite to the contrary, it would be a very
natural and common use case that the external content is a source
code file.

Proposal:  The URI should not be assumed to resolve to xml, but
instead treated like CDATA.

Implementation:  Implemented as proposed in the current version of
xml2rfc.

4.4.21.  In Section 5.4.8.2, "derivedContent" Insertion.

It is not clear from the description if the derived content text
should contain square brackets when an <xref> would be rendered with
square brackets in current output formats.

It is not clear if the derived content should include the 'Figure',
or 'Table' label when pointing to such objects.  When rendering such
a reference in the current output formats, the generated text would
include the label, but the current text seems to lean towards not
making this part of the derived content, which would cause
incompatibility with the output of v2 formatters.

The purpose of this is insufficiently explained.  If the intention is
to use this when generating derived formats, there are problems: If,
for instance, the derived format with a <reference> target is set to
'RFC1234', the text inserted in a derived format should have
surrounding square brackets; but if the target is a section, it
should not.  If on the other hand the derived format includes the
square brackets when appropriate, the link in a derived format with
internal link capability will use the whole of the bracketed string,
rather than the more appropriate text within the brackets.

Proposal:  The whole "derivedContent" handling and specification

Levkowetz                 Expires 20 March 2022                [Page 53]
Internet-Draft        RFC7991 Implementation Notes        September 2021

needs a thorough rework, with specification of the intended use of
the attribute by formatters.  Possibly the whole "derivedContent"
concept should be scrapped, and the rendering left for the
formatter, depending on the characteristics of the output format.

Implementation:  The current version of xml2rfc works around this
issue by using different formatter code for different cases, which
is not good from the viewpoint of using the prepped XML as the
archival format, but at least produces reasonable output.

4.4.22.  In Section 5.4.9, <relref> Processing

Why doesn't <relref> have the same format options as <xref>?  Surely
they must be just as relevant here.  But more importantly, <relref>
overlaps <xref> so much that it would be better to just add section,
relative, and displayFormat to <xref>.  Maybe change displayFormat to
the earlier proposed 'sectionFormat'.

Proposal:  Deprecate <relref>, and fold the functionality into
<xref>.

Implementation:  The <relref> functionality has been folded into
<xref>.  As of version 2.20.0, xml2rfc rewrites <relref> to
<xref>, with "displayFormat" changed to "sectionFormat".

4.4.23.  New Section 5.4.10, Unused Reference Warnings

During vocabulary version 2 processing, warnings are emitted for
<reference> entries that are not used.  This is not specified for v3,
but is desired, according to RFC Editor staff.  Implemented in
xml2rfc v2.18.0.

4.4.24.  New Section 5.4.11, Index Insertion

RFC7998 does not say anything about inserting xml for the index, if
one is requested, but it seems counter-intuitive not to produce xml
for the index as part of the preptool processing, given all the other
prepping that's being done.  What's more, in Section 2.27 of RFC 7991
there's this text:

"When the prep tool is creating index content, it collects the
items in a case-sensitive fashion for both the item and sub-item
level."

Proposal:  Insert the XML necessary to render the index into the
prepped XML.

Implementation:  Implemented as proposed in the current version of

Levkowetz                 Expires 20 March 2022                [Page 54]
Internet-Draft        RFC7991 Implementation Notes        September 2021

xml2rfc.

4.4.25.  In Section 5.6.3, <link> Processing

4.4.25.1.  Using docName to generate convertedFrom

Bullet 4.: Bad grammar: s/RFC the form/RFC, in the form/

Bullet 4.: Hmm.  The <link rel="convertedFrom" href="draft-...">
should ideally be created automatically, but there is no clear path
of how to do that.

Proposal:  Require docName to be set to the draft name, and use that
to create this link.  This also implies that "docName" not be
deprecated (see Section 3.1.18).

Implementation:  Implemented as proposed in the current version of
xml2rfc.

4.4.25.2.  Invalid "rel" values.

Using the W3C validator to validate the V3 output, there are some
errors; all of them with the same basic complaint: The values
prescribed for the <link> "rel" attribute (derivedFrom, describedBy,
and item) are not permitted values.  The permitted values are given

5.  Possible New Work

5.1.  Inline and Display Math

Various people have repeatedly asked for better provisions for using
math in drafts.  A number of different cases seems to be mentioned,
listed roughtly in order of complexity:

1.  Ability to use individual math symbols in running text

2.  Ability to insert math equations in running text

3.  Ability to display complex math as figures

Levkowetz                 Expires 20 March 2022                [Page 55]
Internet-Draft        RFC7991 Implementation Notes        September 2021

Not surprisingly, these 3 use cases correspond quite well to the 3
modes the TeX typesetting system uses when considering math.  In text
mode, individual math symbols may be inserted in running text; in
inline math mode, equations can be built, but will be displayed
inline with preceding and following text (but can still display
content that does not otherwise fit on a single line, such as a
fraction, to take a very simple example.  In display math mode,
equations will be displayed on a separate line (or multiple lines).

One possible approach to integrating the second and third case above
in IETF documents rendered as HTML and PDF is to add support for
MathJax [MATH-JAX].

For the first case, the simplest and most straightforward approach
would be to extend the permitted range of unicode code-points in
running body text from permitting ASCII only (unless enclosed in <u>
elements) to permit ASCII and code-points in the 'Mathematical
Operators' and 'Supplementary Mathematical Operators' blocks, or
alternatively code-points in the 'Symbol, Math' ('Sm') category,
which includes the mentioned blocks, but also includes additional
symbols, and possibly goes further than needed if the second case
above is provided for.

5.2.  Change Bars

Change bars have been used in published RFCs (see for instance
[RFC6818]), and would seem to be a fairly obvious extension to add.
When documents were produced with a possible nroff step, adding
change bars was fairly straightforward, but with the transition to
publication in XML as the archival format, this capability has now
been lost, unless we introduce an element that provides it.

5.3.  Element Nesting

There exists a number of areas where without any obvious reason some
elements have been excluded from appearing.  For instance, in
Section 3.1 of RFC-to-be 8646 (draft-ietf-manet-dlep-pause-
extension), there is a small table as part of one <dd> in a <dl>
(definition list) that defines the bit fields of a data item.  But
since <table> is not permitted in a <dd>, the definition list has to
be broken at this point, a <table> element inserted, and then the
<dl> continues to define the rest of the data item fields.

This seems quite unnecssary; there is no obvious reason why tables
cannot be part of <dd> or <li>.

Levkowetz                 Expires 20 March 2022                [Page 56]
Internet-Draft        RFC7991 Implementation Notes        September 2021

5.4.  Schema Consistency

After some changes introduced during implementation, such as
permitting <blockquote> within <li> after discussion on the xml2rfc-
dev list (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/xml2rfc-
dev/?q=subject%3A%22issue%20%2335%22) there is a lack of consistency
in which elements are permitted where.  Once a decision has been made
on the additional proposed changes above, (such as permitting <table>
within <dd> and <li>) a review should be done of the resulting
schema, and see if a cleanup for consistency is needed.

Here are for instance lists of elements permitted inside various
block elements, as of release 2.28.0 of xml2rfc:

aside:
(artset| artwork| dl| figure| iref| ol| t| table| ul)*
blockquote:
(artset| artwork| dl| figure| ol| sourcecode| t| ul)+
li: (artset| artwork| blockquote| dl| figure| ol| sourcecode| t| ul)+
dd: (artset| artwork| dl| figure| ol| sourcecode| t| ul)+
td: (artset| artwork| dl| figure| ol| sourcecode| t| ul)+
th: (artset| artwork| dl| figure| ol| sourcecode| t| ul)+

6.  Security Considerations

This document does not introduce any security considerations on its
own.

7.  Informative References

[DRY]      Wikipedia, "Don't repeat yourself", 2018,
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_repeat_yourself>.

[HCARD]    Celik, T., "hCard 1.0", 2015,
<http://microformats.org/wiki/hcard>.

[KISS]     Wikipedia, "KISS Principle", 2018,
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KISS_principle>.

[MATH-JAX] The MathJax Team, "MathJax - Beautiful math in all
browsers", 2009-2019, <https://www.mathjax.org>.

[POLA]     Wikipedia, "Principle of least astonishment", 2018,
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Principle_of_least_astonishment>.

Levkowetz                 Expires 20 March 2022                [Page 57]
Internet-Draft        RFC7991 Implementation Notes        September 2021

[RFC3339]  Klyne, G. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the Internet:
Timestamps", RFC 3339, DOI 10.17487/RFC3339, July 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3339>.

[RFC4228]  Rousskov, A., "Requirements for an IETF Draft Submission
Toolset", RFC 4228, DOI 10.17487/RFC4228, December 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4228>.

[RFC6350]  Perreault, S., "vCard Format Specification", RFC 6350,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6350, August 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6350>.

[RFC6818]  Yee, P., "Updates to the Internet X.509 Public Key
Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List
(CRL) Profile", RFC 6818, DOI 10.17487/RFC6818, January
2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6818>.

[RFC7749]  Reschke, J., "The "xml2rfc" Version 2 Vocabulary",
RFC 7749, DOI 10.17487/RFC7749, February 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7749>.

[RFC7991]  Hoffman, P., "The "xml2rfc" Version 3 Vocabulary",
RFC 7991, DOI 10.17487/RFC7991, December 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7991>.

[RFC7992]  Hildebrand, J., Ed. and P. Hoffman, "HTML Format for
RFCs", RFC 7992, DOI 10.17487/RFC7992, December 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7992>.

[RFC7993]  Flanagan, H., "Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) Requirements
for RFCs", RFC 7993, DOI 10.17487/RFC7993, December 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7993>.

[RFC7994]  Flanagan, H., "Requirements for Plain-Text RFCs",
RFC 7994, DOI 10.17487/RFC7994, December 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7994>.

[RFC7995]  Hansen, T., Ed., Masinter, L., and M. Hardy, "PDF Format
for RFCs", RFC 7995, DOI 10.17487/RFC7995, December 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7995>.

[RFC7996]  Brownlee, N., "SVG Drawings for RFCs: SVG 1.2 RFC",
RFC 7996, DOI 10.17487/RFC7996, December 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7996>.

[RFC7997]  Flanagan, H., Ed., "The Use of Non-ASCII Characters in
RFCs", RFC 7997, DOI 10.17487/RFC7997, December 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7997>.

Levkowetz                 Expires 20 March 2022                [Page 58]
Internet-Draft        RFC7991 Implementation Notes        September 2021

[RFC7998]  Hoffman, P. and J. Hildebrand, ""xml2rfc" Version 3
Preparation Tool Description", RFC 7998,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7998, December 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7998>.

[RFC8407]  Bierman, A., "Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of
Documents Containing YANG Data Models", BCP 216, RFC 8407,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8407, October 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8407>.

[XML2RFC]  Levkowetz, H., "xml2rfc", 2018,
<https://pypi.org/pypi/xml2rfc>.

Appendix A.  Proposed new sections in RFC 7991 bis

A.1.  <u>

In xml2rfc vocabulary version 3, the elements <author>,
<organisation>, <street>, <city>, <region>, <code>, <country>,
<postalLine>, <email>, <seriesInfo>, and <title> may contain non-
ascii characters for the purpose of rendering author names,
addresses, and reference titles correctly.  They also have an
additional "ascii" attribute for the purpose of proper rendering in
ascii-only media.

In order to insert Unicode characters in any other context, xml2rfc
vocabulary v3 requires that the Unicode string be enclosed within an
<u> element.  The element will be expanded inline based on the value
of a "format" attribute.  This provides a generalised means of
generating the 6 methods of Unicode renderings listed in [RFC7997],
Section 3.4, and also several others found in for instance the RFC
Format Tools example rendering of RFC 7700, at https://rfc-
format.github.io/draft-iab-rfc-css-bis/sample2-v2.html.

The "format" attribute accepts either a simplified format
specification, or a full format string with placeholders for the
various possible Unicode expansions.

A.1.1.  Expansion of simplified <u> format specifications

The simplified format consists of dash-separated keywords, where each
keyword represents a possible expansion of the Unicode character or
string; use for example "<u "lit-num-name">foo</u>" to expand the
text to its literal value, code point values, and code point names.

Levkowetz                 Expires 20 March 2022                [Page 59]
Internet-Draft        RFC7991 Implementation Notes        September 2021

A combination of up to 3 of the following keywords may be used,
separated by dashes: "num", "lit", "name", "ascii", "char".  The
keywords are expanded as follows and combined, with the second and
third enclosed in parentheses (if present):

"num"  The numeric value(s) of the element text, in U+1234
notation

"name"  The Unicode name(s) of the element text

"lit"  The literal element text, enclosed in quotes

"char"  The literal element text, without quotes

"ascii"  The value of the 'ascii' attribute on the <u> element

In order to ensure that no specification mistakes can result for
rendering methods that cannot render all Unicode code points, "num"
MUST always be part of the specified format.

The default value of the "format" attribute is "lit-name-num".

A.1.1.1.  Examples

Examples:

format="num-lit":
Temperature changes in the Temperature Control Protocol are
indicated by the character U+0394 ("Δ").

format="num-name":
Temperature changes in the Temperature Control Protocol are
indicated by the character U+0394 (GREEK CAPITAL LETTER DELTA).

format="num-lit-name":
Temperature changes in the Temperature Control Protocol are
indicated by the character U+0394 ("Δ", GREEK CAPITAL LETTER
DELTA).

format="num-name-lit":
Temperature changes in the Temperature Control Protocol are
indicated by the character U+0394 (GREEK CAPITAL LETTER DELTA,
"Δ").

format="name-lit-num":
Temperature changes in the Temperature Control Protocol are
indicated by the character GREEK CAPITAL LETTER DELTA ("Δ",
U+0394).

Levkowetz                 Expires 20 March 2022                [Page 60]
Internet-Draft        RFC7991 Implementation Notes        September 2021

format="lit-name-num":
Temperature changes in the Temperature Control Protocol are
indicated by the character "Δ" (GREEK CAPITAL LETTER DELTA,
U+0394).

A.1.1.2.  Expansion of <u> multi-codepoint strings

If the <u> element encloses a sequence of Unicode codepoints, rather
than a single one, the rendering reflects this.  The element

<u format="num-lit">ᏚᎢᎵᎬᎢᎬᏒ</u>

will be expanded to 'U+13DA U+13A2 U+13B5 U+13AC U+13A2 U+13AC U+13D2
("ᏚᎢᎵᎬᎢᎬᏒ")'.

Unicode characters in document text which are not enclosed in <u>
will be replaced with a question mark (?) and a warning will be
issued.

A.1.2.  Non-simplified <u> format specifications

In order to provide for cases where the simplified format above is
insufficient, without relinquishing the requirement that the number
of a code point always must be rendered, the "format" attribute can
also accept a full format string.  This format uses placeholders
which consist of any of the key words above enclosed in curly braces;
outside of this, any ascii text is permissible.  For example,

The <u format="{lit} character ({num})">Δ</u>.

will be rendered as

The "Δ" character (U+0394).

As for the simplified format, "num" MUST always be part of the
specified format in order to ensure that no specification mistakes
can result for rendering methods that cannot render all Unicode code
points,

A.1.3.  Split expansion of <u> elements

There are cases which cannot be handled with either the simplified or
full <u> format specifications.  One is exemplified in Table 1 of the
CSS sample document at https://rfc-format.github.io/draft-iab-rfc-
css-bis/sample2-v2.html#s-3.  Rendering this with <u> elements
requires that the non-ascii content be rendered in one place (a table
cell in one column) while the expansion is rendered in another cell
in a different column.  Provision for this has been made by modifying

Levkowetz                 Expires 20 March 2022                [Page 61]
Internet-Draft        RFC7991 Implementation Notes        September 2021

the expansion of <u> when it is referenced by an <xref>.  This table,
with <u> elements referenced by <xref> instances:

<table>
<name>A Sample of Legal Nicknames</name>
<tr>
<th>#</th>
<th>Nickname</th>
<th>Output for comparison</th>
</tr>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>1</td>
<td>&lt;Foo&gt;</td>
<td>&lt;foo&gt;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2</td>
<td>&lt;foo&gt;</td>
<td>&lt;foo&gt;</td> </tr>
<tr>
<td>3</td>
<td>&lt;Foo Bar&gt;</td>
<td>&lt;foo bar&gt;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>4</td>
<td>&lt;foo bar&gt;</td>
<td>&lt;foo bar&gt;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>5</td>
<td>
&lt;
<u format="name-num" anchor="greek-upper-sigma">Σ</u>
&gt;
</td>
<td> <xref target="greek-upper-sigma" /> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>6</td>
<td>
&lt;
<u format="name-num" anchor="greek-lower-sigma">σ</u>
&gt;
</td>

Levkowetz                 Expires 20 March 2022                [Page 62]
Internet-Draft        RFC7991 Implementation Notes        September 2021

<td> <xref target="greek-lower-sigma" /> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>7</td>
<td>
&lt;
<u format="name-num" anchor="greek-final-sigma">ς</u>
&gt;
</td>
<td> <xref target="greek-final-sigma" /> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>8</td>
<td>
&lt;
<u format="name-num" anchor="black-chess-king">♚</u>
&gt;
</td>
<td> <xref target="black-chess-king" format="default"/> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>9</td>
<td>
&lt;Richard
<u format="{char}> ({num})" anchor="richard-iv">Ⅳ</u>
&gt;
</td>
<td>&lt;richard iv&gt;</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

comes out as shown below:

Levkowetz                 Expires 20 March 2022                [Page 63]
Internet-Draft        RFC7991 Implementation Notes        September 2021

+===+=============+=========================================+
| # | Nickname    | Output for comparison                   |
+===+=============+=========================================+
| 1 | <Foo>       | <foo>                                   |
+---+-------------+-----------------------------------------+
| 2 | <foo>       | <foo>                                   |
+---+-------------+-----------------------------------------+
| 3 | <Foo Bar>   | <foo bar>                               |
+---+-------------+-----------------------------------------+
| 4 | <foo bar>   | <foo bar>                               |
+---+-------------+-----------------------------------------+
| 5 | <Σ>         | GREEK CAPITAL LETTER SIGMA (U+03A3)     |
+---+-------------+-----------------------------------------+
| 6 | <σ>         | GREEK SMALL LETTER SIGMA (U+03C3)       |
+---+-------------+-----------------------------------------+
| 7 | <ς>         | GREEK SMALL LETTER FINAL SIGMA (U+03C2) |
+---+-------------+-----------------------------------------+
| 8 | <♚>         | BLACK CHESS KING (U+265A)               |
+---+-------------+-----------------------------------------+
| 9 | <Richard Ⅳ> | <richard iv>                            |
|   | (U+2163)    |                                         |
+---+-------------+-----------------------------------------+

Table 2: A Sample of Legal Nicknames

A.2.  <rendering>

The preferred ordering of postal address lines differs not only as a
function of country and region, but also as a function of script for
some countries (some locales will order addresses in native scripts
from largest to smallest geographic areas, while romanised addresses
are ordered from smallest to largest, for instance), and as a
function of time (i.e., address formats and renderings can change
over time).

The current implementation of <postal> rendering relies on an
external library that provides correct ordering of native and
romanised address formats as a function of country and region.

This does however not provide for stability over time -- if the
address format changes over time, the rendering order indicated by
the address internationalization library will reflect only what is
appropriate at a particular point in time, which may be different
from what was appropriate at the time a document was published.

Levkowetz                 Expires 20 March 2022                [Page 64]
Internet-Draft        RFC7991 Implementation Notes        September 2021

In order to capture the appropriate address format for native and
romanised postal addresses, at the time of publication, the <postal>
element may have one or more (normally two) <rendering> child
elements, according to the following Relax-NG Compact schema:

postal =
element postal {
attribute xml:base { text }?,
attribute xml:lang { text }?,
(( city | cityarea | code | country | extaddr | pobox | region
| sortingcode | street)*
| postalLine+),
rendering*
}

rendering =
element rendering {
attribute xml:base { text }?,
attribute xml:lang { text }?,
attribute type { "ascii" | "unicode" },
postalLine+
}

When <rendering> elements are present under <postal>, there should be
one element with attribute type="ascii" if there is no non-Latin
postal address content, and two elements, with types "ascii" and
"unicode" respectively if there is non-Latin content present.

When producing prepped output, the preptool should invoke the address
internationalization library to get the correct ordering of native
and romanised address lines if the required <rendering> elements
aren't already present, and insert <rendering> elements reflecting
the ordering at the time of prepping.  This will permit the capture
of address line rendering order at the time of publication, and avoid
re-invocation of the address internationalization library at a later
time.

Renderers MUST use the appropriate <rendering> entries if they are
present, rather than re-invoking an address internationalization
library to get the address line ordering.

The expectation is that authors will provide the appropriate <postal>
elements (<street>, <city>, <country> etc.), but not <rendering>
elements; these will be filled in by the preptool and used by the
renderers for all subsequent rendering.

Levkowetz                 Expires 20 March 2022                [Page 65]
Internet-Draft        RFC7991 Implementation Notes        September 2021

Henrik Levkowetz
Elf Tools AB
Ollonstigen 8
SE-18164 Lidingö
Sweden

Email: henrik@levkowetz.com

Levkowetz                 Expires 20 March 2022                [Page 66]