Considering using rfc2629.xslt for testing v2/v3 equivalence

[ronaldtse]

Julian Reschke suggested that we can try out his rfc2629.xslt. I'm thinking that we can use it for testing our backend v2/v3 equivalence. Thoughts @opoudjis ?

Link: https://www.greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2629xslt/rfc2629xslt.html#v3

[reschke]

If you find defects in rfc2629.xslt, feel free to raise issues at https://github.com/reschke/xml2rfc

[opoudjis]

arched eyebrow As in, RFC2629.xslt processes both RFC XML v2 and RFC XML v3, and I diff the resulting HTML? I could, though I hesitate because of the note that RFC2629.xslt support of v3 is incomplete, and of course a lot of the v3 features are additions to v2 to begin with. I'll see what I get out of it.

[reschke]

I think it would be more interesting to see whether rfc2629.xslt does something meaningful with the V3 output...

[ronaldtse]

That's true. Instead of diff-ing, at least we can ensure that our v3 output works with rfc2629.xslt (and xml2rfc).

[ronaldtse]

In fact, rfc2629.xslt can be a good nits-picker:

$ saxon draft-ribose-openpgp-oscca-01.xml rfc2629.xslt  > a.html

INFO: The /rfc/front/workgroup should only be used for Working/Research Group drafts
INFO: No need to include 'Working Group' or 'Research Group' postfix in /rfc/front/workgroup value 'Network Working Group'
WARNING: Unknown IETF area: "internet" - should be one of: "Applications and Real-Time", "art", "General", "gen", "Internet", "int", "Operations and Management", "ops", "Routing", "rtg", "Security", "sec", "Transport", "tsv" (as of the publication date of 201711)
WARNING: title/@abbrev was specified despite the title being short enough (28) - Title: 'OSCCA Extensions For OpenPGP', abbreviated title='OSCCA Extensions for OpenPGP'
INFO: Ignoring @target https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119 in link calculation
INFO: Ignoring @target https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4880 in link calculation
INFO: Ignoring @target https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6637 in link calculation
WARNING: @initials 'A': did you mean 'A.'?
WARNING: @initials 'S': did you mean 'S.'?
WARNING: @initials 'X': did you mean 'X.'?
WARNING: @initials 'R': did you mean 'R.'?
WARNING: @initials 'W': did you mean 'W.'?
WARNING: @initials 'P': did you mean 'P.'?
WARNING: @initials 'R': did you mean 'R.'?
WARNING: @initials 'W': did you mean 'W.'?
WARNING: @initials 'S': did you mean 'S.'?
WARNING: @initials 'S': did you mean 'S.'?
WARNING: @initials 'X': did you mean 'X.'?
INFO: Ignoring @target https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6150 in link calculation
INFO: Ignoring @target https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6234 in link calculation
INFO: Ignoring @target https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7253 in link calculation
INFO: Ignoring @target https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126 in link calculation
WARNING: unused reference 'SM2-1'
WARNING: missing text in street