Subject: [xml2rfc-dev] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-levkowetz-xml2rfc-v3-implementation-notes-09#section-3.1.20

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2019 19:09:05 +0100

...see also
<https://github.com/rfc-format/draft-iab-xml2rfc-v3-bis/pull/107>, which
I believe is misguided.

> 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".

That is correct, but very easy to fix by saying that numbering is
inherited from the parent section.

>    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.

That doesn't make any sense - the presence in the ToC does not depend on
numbering at all. To control the ToC, we already have
<https://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc7991.html#element.section.attribute.toc>.

>    Proposal:  Permit sections which are not top-level sections to have
>       numbered="false".
>
>    Implementation:  In The current version of xml2rfc, child sections
>       may have numbered="false".

Limiting this to top-level sections was very intentional; the reasons
given above are IMHO not sufficient at all for this change.

Heather, by any means, please undo this change for now.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Heather Flanagan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2019 11:13:11 -0700

> On Oct 29, 2019, at 11:09 AM, Julian Reschke <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> ...see also

I don’t think having numbered child sections in an otherwise unnumbered section (especially if they are inheriting a phantom number from the unnumbered section” is a good idea at all. Do you have better language that I can use to state that is prohibited? 

-Heather

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2019 19:21:45 +0100

> I don’t think having numbered child sections in an otherwise unnumbered section (especially if they are inheriting a phantom number from the unnumbered section” is a good idea at all. Do you have b…

Just say that descendant sections of unnumbered sections are unnumbered
by definition (and that it would be an error to set numbered back to true).

Asking authors to repeat themselves when the intent is totally clear
just doesn't make any sense.

FWIW, I'm also opposed to expanding control to subsections for now (and
I see that you didn't adopt that part of the proposal yet). Before we do
that, we should have a clear use case.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Heather Flanagan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2019 11:30:38 -0700

> On Oct 29, 2019, at 11:21 AM, Julian Reschke <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

Great, that gets to what I want.

> just doesn't make any sense.

Which wasn’t my intent, but I can see how you got there.

> that, we should have a clear use case.

Right now, I’m in the middle of trying to figure out how to capture the reality of <seriesInfo> and make appropriate changes. After that, it will be <sourcecode> and then (if my brain hasn’t melted) “keepWithNext”.

-Heather

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2019 21:52:18 +0100

> Great, that gets to what I want.

Say you have two sibling sections with numbered="false".  If you decide
you want to rearrange these, so you move one of them into the other, then
suddenly if having numbered="false" in a child section is prohibited, your
XML becomes invalid.

I think that's unfriendly and completely unnecessary.

Regards,

	Henrik

> _______________________________________________
> xml2rfc-dev mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xml2rfc-dev
>

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2019 21:59:01 +0100

>> Heather, by any means, please undo this change for now.

Prohibiting numbered="false" in a child of a section with numbering="false"
does not provide any feature or any gain, but will make life harder on
authors.

I believe this is a quite sufficient reason not to enforce a prohibition
against setting numbered="false" for sections that are children of a
section with numbered="false.  

>> 
> 
> I don’t think having numbered child sections in an otherwise
> unnumbered section (especially if they are inheriting a phantom
> number from the unnumbered section” is a good idea at all.

I fully agree.

Best regards,

	Henrik

> Do you
> have better language that I can use to state that is prohibited?> 
> -Heather
> 
>> 
>

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2019 22:00:44 +0100

On 29.10.2019 21:52, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
> ...
> ...

Setting it to "false" for a child section of a section which is already
unnumbered would not be an error, just not needed.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2019 22:08:00 +0100

> does not provide any feature or any gain, but will make life harder on

Nobody proposed that. You might be misreading what I said. When I said
"limiting this" I was referring to the feature of having control only
over top-level section numbering. That doesn't mean you couldn't set
numbered="false" on a child section of an unnumbered section; it just
would not be needed.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2019 14:03:44 +0100

On 29.10.2019 19:30, Heather Flanagan wrote:
> ...
>
> Right now, I’m in the middle of trying to figure out how to capture the
> reality of <seriesInfo> and make appropriate changes. After that, it
> will be <sourcecode> and then (if my brain hasn’t melted) “keepWithNext”.
>
> -Heather
> ...

That is indeed both important and complex. I'll try to give feedback
soonish.

Best regards, Julian