-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 7
asciidoctor doctype should be "rfc" #25
Comments
There are actually two types of documents we should handle:
Maybe we should have separate RFCs are only created by IETF "RFC Editors", not by mere mortals. The only purpose of the "rfc" doctype in this gem is to re-create XMLRFCs of existing RFCs in asciidoctor format. The purpose of the "internet-draft" doctype is to create XMLRFCs that can be submitted to the Internet Drafts Repository. |
@paolobrasolin: Note that the RFC XML doesn't look essentially different, but there are different, in some instances mutually exclusive document header values. I haven't actually done anything with front/boilerplate in v3, because I had no idea how to populate it! I have assumed the documents processed by this code to be articles, with an initial top-level title; so presumably rfc doctype would be a subclass of article. |
I think the boilerplate is inserted by the RFC tools (e.g., xml2rfc) as long as you have a And yes I agree that the |
I feel that this should be implemented early on. Any time for this @opoudjis ? 😉 |
rolls eyes :-) Obviously I need a sample of what this boilerplate is supposed to look like, and I assume the boilerplate is not determined by the ASCIIdoctor at all, but fixed for all Internet Drafts? The xml2rfc tool https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org says only that you should provide rfc@ipr attributes, not how you should populate the |
From MMark only these elements are generated (from the rfc-openpgp-oscca draft): <rfc ipr="trust200902" category="std" docName="draft-openpgp-oscca-02" updates="4880, 6637">
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc compact="yes"?>
<?rfc subcompact="no"?>
<?rfc private=""?>
<?rfc topblock="yes"?>
<?rfc comments="no"?>
...
</rfc> Seems that the |
Doctype is implemented, and is inheriting :article behaviour by default (since other doctype values are by exception). Boilerplate element is not present in MMark output either, and is not required by XML2RFC. So closing this ticket. |
Perfect -- thank you @opoudjis ! |
asciidoctor supports multiple
doctype
s, including:And for our gem, the
doctype
should definitely berfc
.Agree?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: