Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

docName constraint interacts badly with -latest convention for editors' drafts #439

Closed
ietf-svn-bot opened this issue Oct 7, 2019 · 8 comments

Comments

@ietf-svn-bot
Copy link

resolution_wontfix type_defect | by jyasskin@chromium.org


When using https://github.com/martinthomson/i-d-template/, the documentation instructs us to use "the -latest suffix in place of the usual number ('-00', or '-08')." The build system replaces that with the right number in the process of submitting.

However, when I have this build system pass the --v3 parameter to xml2rfc, xml2rfc complains:

Warning: The 'docName' attribute of the <rfc/> element should have a revision number as the last component: docName="draft-foo-bar-02".

Clearly that's the right warning for actually submitting documents, but it would be nice if it didn't appear while developing them, as is the case in xml2rfc v2.


Issue migrated from trac:439 at 2022-02-05 12:50:58 +0000

@ietf-svn-bot
Copy link
Author

@henrik@levkowetz.com changed component from Version_3_cli_html to v3 vocabulary, v2 xml2rfc

@ietf-svn-bot
Copy link
Author

@henrik@levkowetz.com commented


I wonder if you might profitably use the warning suppression feature for v3 formatters to suppress this? If you add this before , you should not see the warning:

   <?v3xml2rfc silence="The 'docName' attribute of the <rfc/> element" ?>

(It uses prefix matching and if that fails then regex matching to check if a given warning should be silenced).

@ietf-svn-bot
Copy link
Author

@henrik@levkowetz.com changed priority from medium to minor

@ietf-svn-bot
Copy link
Author

@rjsparks@nostrum.com changed status from new to closed

@ietf-svn-bot
Copy link
Author

@rjsparks@nostrum.com changed resolution from `` to wontfix

@ietf-svn-bot
Copy link
Author

@rjsparks@nostrum.com commented


The suggestion Henrik makes looks like the right path for now. Marking this WontFix.

@ietf-svn-bot
Copy link
Author

@julian.reschke@gmx.de commented


Seems like the wrong decision to me.

@ietf-svn-bot
Copy link
Author

@julian.reschke@gmx.de commented


This is bad.

  1. The suggested workaround does not work for v2 mode; the warning is printed even if the PI is present.

  2. Authors who add the PI to silence the warning are likely to forget to remove it when they should (when producing an Internet Draft for publication).

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant