Hi Benoit et. al, A possible dumb question.
> On Nov 15, 2025, at 2:27 AM, [email protected] > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear all, > > I am trying to summarize the conclusions of this email thread, in light of > the draft-cardona-claise-onion-yang-coverage > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cardona-claise-onion-yang-coverage/> > presentation in the NETMOD meeting: > - We want to have instance examples next to the IETF YANG module. Granted > - We want to have those instance examples WITHIN the same document as the > YANG module. I guess so. > This is ideal but is it always possible, because there might be different > contexts? > See Rob Wilton's comment in the IETF 124 NETMOD meeting minutes > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-124-netmod-202511071430/> > - I understand that the community would like a different tags for the > instances (next to CODE BEGINS/END) > And we have some in XML, great. > - What I am not sure: do we also need the tags for the text draft/RFC (next > to XML)? > > Where I would appreciate the help (of someone more clever that I): how to > practically add those tags, when you start from editing markdown draft. > A (process) example would be ideal. Apart from what Carsten mentioned about inserting an attribute into <sourcecode, the question I have is … What happens to attribute that a tool does not recognize? Does it ignore it, or does it stop processing the document? Based on what Carsten says in this thread "xml2rfc will simply croak when it sees that”, it appears we have to campaign to get xml2rfc to supporting the new attribute of ‘role’. But please confirm. Thanks > > Thanks and regards, Benoit > >> On Oct 13, 2025, at 16:30, Kent Watsen <[email protected]> >> <mailto:[email protected]> wrote: >>> I find that the ASCII-armor CODE BEGINS/CODE ENDS is an undesirable relic >>> from days before XML-based RFCs. Now that RFCs are XML-native, better >>> constructs are possible. I do not think that extracting from >>> Text-formatted RFCs is necessary. Being able to extract from just XML is >>> fine. Therefore I do NOT support adding support for code-tags for examples. >> RFCXML has markers= and related attributes name= etc. [1]; you never type >> CODE BEGINS/ENDS. >> There is no need to ever apply heuristics to pull source from plaintext >> renderings any more. >> >> Try kramdown-rfc-extract-sourcecode on the XML if you need a tool. >> Try https://tzi.de/~cabo/i-d <https://tzi.de/~cabo/i-d> or /rfc for a >> prototype of the “RFC filesystem” I’m proposing (not recently updated >> though). >> >> Grüße, Carsten >> >> [1]: https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary#markers >> <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary#markers> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> netmod mailing list -- [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Mahesh Jethanandani [email protected]
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
