Unable to Validate File

headers Zoltán Ördögh (GMail | 3 Feb 20:56

_______________________________________________
xml2rfc mailing list
xml2rfc <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xml2rfc

On 2012-02-03 20:56, Zoltán Ördögh (GMail) wrote:
> Hi all,
> I have a few issues, I try to put them in the same email.
>
> Basic stuff:
> I am using 1.3.6 offline (there's no newer offline version available for
> download).
> I am using 1.3.6 online, too (there's an error that that does not allow
> running the development version; see attachment: xml2rfc-dev-error.png;
> see transcript in 'PS' at the end of this mail).
> I attached my draft so you can run some the same tests.
>
> When I use 1.3.6 offline, I get this error:
> artwork outdented 1 characters to avoid overrunning right margin around
> input line 231
> This is meaningless because I have no clue which line is too long - my
> editor shows that all lines are shorted than 72.

72 is too much 

> So, I tried using the online tool (1.3.6).
>
> With the default settings, I get this:
>
>
>   Unable to Validate File
>
> INPUT: 417 ms (379 elems, 309 attrs, 7265 spaces, 28061 chars)
> [Error] INPUT:693:25: The content of element type"front"  is incomplete, it must match"(title,author+,date,area*,workgroup*,keyword*,abstract?,note*)".
>
>
> To proceed, you should fix your input file.
> You may also try doing the conversion with Strict Checking turned off.
>
> Apache/2.2.21 (Debian) Server at xml.resource.org
> <http://xml.resource.org> Port 80
>
>
> This *looks* wrong to me because the structure does, in fact, match:
> title (1x), author (1x), date (1x), area (1xEMPTY), workgroup (1xEMPTY),
> abstract (1x), note (1x).

It's about the <front> element in the OMA-SPAMREP reference.

> Something that might be work looking into.
> Anyway, I go back, I change 'strict' to 'fast', and try again.
> I get no messages of any kind. No errors, no warnings.
>
> How can I figure out the reason for the figure being considered too wide?
> Do I need to or is this fine?

If you don't reduce the width xml2rfc will outdent the artwork, which 
may look funny.

Also: you may want to remove <area/> and <workgroup/>; they are optional 
anyway.

>
> Thank you.
>
> PS. here's the transcript of the error from 2.2.3 in case it is useful:

Folks,

G'day.  I'm wearing my xml2rfc list co-administrator hat.

There's a legitimate message being held by the list server, because the author 
is not a member of this list.  Rather than simply let the message through, I 
thought I'd ask you folks whether there is a 'policy' that should be in place 
that allows these to be handled automatically.

There are only three paths I can think of.

    1.  One is to allow anyone to post to this list.  The rate of bogus postings 
to this list has been quite small.  So I would expect the incremental hassle 
factor on you all to be small.

    2.  Another is to create a parallel "-discuss" list, or the like, that has 
open posting.  That means posters need to know about it and it means folks here 
need to look there.

    3.  Of course, the alternative is to leave things as they are, for the 
initial posting, and let the co-administrators manually allow such legitimate 
posts by 'outsiders' through.  The burden on us isn't all that high; there are 
probably fewer of these legitimate posts than of bogus ones...  On the other 
hand, it means that any follow-up with the author will also require manual 
permission.  (Hmmm.  Or we could allow such authors to have permanent 
authorization to post; that doesn't make them 'members', so they won't get 
regular mail, but they can post followups.)

Thoughts?

d/
--

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

On 2012-02-09, at 10:55, Dave CROCKER wrote:

>   1.  One is to allow anyone to post to this list.  The rate of bogus postings to this list has been quite small.  So
I would expect the incremental hassle factor on you all to be small.
> 
>   2.  Another is to create a parallel "-discuss" list, or the like, that has open posting.  That means posters
need to know about it and it means folks here need to look there.
> 
>   3.  Of course, the alternative is to leave things as they are, for the initial posting, and let the
co-administrators manually allow such legitimate posts by 'outsiders' through.  The burden on us isn't
all that high; there are probably fewer of these legitimate posts than of bogus ones...  On the other hand,
it means that any follow-up with the author will also require manual permission.  (Hmmm.  Or we could allow
such authors to have permanent authorization to post; that doesn't make them 'members', so they won't get
regular mail, but they can post followups.)

I think (2) is unnecessary. I think (1) would probably be fine, and if it turned out not to be fine, as measured
by a chorus of complaints, we could always revert to (3).

With respect to (3), if this is mailman I think there's a handy button for "allow this post, and any future
posts from this person regardless of whether they are subscribed to the list". In the case where a post from
a non-subscriber triggers an active thread, that can help stop the conversation becoming stilted and
confusing due to moderator lag.

Joe

On 2012-02-09 10:55 , Dave CROCKER wrote:
> Folks,
>
> G'day.  I'm wearing my xml2rfc list co-administrator hat.
>
> There's a legitimate message being held by the list server, because 
> the author is not a member of this list.  Rather than simply let the 
> message through, I thought I'd ask you folks whether there is a 
> 'policy' that should be in place that allows these to be handled 
> automatically.
>
> There are only three paths I can think of.
>
>    1.  One is to allow anyone to post to this list.  The rate of bogus 
> postings to this list has been quite small.  So I would expect the 
> incremental hassle factor on you all to be small.
>
>    2.  Another is to create a parallel "-discuss" list, or the like, 
> that has open posting.  That means posters need to know about it and 
> it means folks here need to look there.
>
>    3.  Of course, the alternative is to leave things as they are, for 
> the initial posting, and let the co-administrators manually allow such 
> legitimate posts by 'outsiders' through.  The burden on us isn't all 
> that high; there are probably fewer of these legitimate posts than of 
> bogus ones...  On the other hand, it means that any follow-up with the 
> author will also require manual permission.  (Hmmm.  Or we could allow 
> such authors to have permanent authorization to post; that doesn't 
> make them 'members', so they won't get regular mail, but they can post 
> followups.)

I've always found that requiring subscription to post is a good 
regulator.  I'd rather not see that requirement dropped and would 
encourage the administrators not to make exceptions.   It's really not a 
burden for someone to subscribe even just for the time it takes to get 
an issue resolved.

I don't think that one should fork a list until it's clear that you've 
got too much traffic and a clear division of interest, which I think is 
not the case here (no on #2).

On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 10:12 AM, Scott Lawrence <xmlscott <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> I've always found that requiring subscription to post is a good regulator.
>  I'd rather not see that requirement dropped and would encourage the
> administrators not to make exceptions.   It's really not a burden for
> someone to subscribe even just for the time it takes to get an issue
> resolved.

This is extremely obnoxious for IETF lists.  Must I really subscribe
to post, when I already subscribe to tens of IETF lists?  That's just
silly.  If you'll moderate a list then add non-subscribeds to the
whitelist as they post.

Ideally any subscriber to 5 or more IETF lists should not have to
subscribe to post to any other lists (modulo bans from posting).

Nico
--
_______________________________________________
xml2rfc mailing list
xml2rfc <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xml2rfc

On 2012-02-09 17:01 Joe Abley said:
> 
> On 2012-02-09, at 10:55, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> 
>> 1.  One is to allow anyone to post to this list.  The rate of bogus
>> postings to this list has been quite small.  So I would expect the
>> incremental hassle factor on you all to be small.
>> 
>> 2.  Another is to create a parallel "-discuss" list, or the like,
>> that has open posting.  That means posters need to know about it
>> and it means folks here need to look there.
>> 
>> 3.  Of course, the alternative is to leave things as they are, for
>> the initial posting, and let the co-administrators manually allow
>> such legitimate posts by 'outsiders' through.  The burden on us
>> isn't all that high; there are probably fewer of these legitimate
>> posts than of bogus ones...  On the other hand, it means that any
>> follow-up with the author will also require manual permission.
>> (Hmmm.  Or we could allow such authors to have permanent
>> authorization to post; that doesn't make them 'members', so they
>> won't get regular mail, but they can post followups.)
> 
> I think (2) is unnecessary. I think (1) would probably be fine, and
> if it turned out not to be fine, as measured by a chorus of
> complaints, we could always revert to (3).

+1

	Henrik

On 2/9/2012 8:01 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
> With respect to (3), if this is mailman I think there's a handy button for "allow this post, and any future
posts from this person regardless of whether they are subscribed to the list". In the case where a post from
a non-subscriber triggers an active thread, that can help stop the conversation becoming stilted and
confusing due to moderator lag.

Right.  That's what prompted me to think of the parenthetical enhancement to 
manual acceptance.

d/

--

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

On 2012-02-09, at 11:15, Nico Williams wrote:

> This is extremely obnoxious for IETF lists.  Must I really subscribe
> to post, when I already subscribe to tens of IETF lists?  That's just
> silly.  If you'll moderate a list then add non-subscribeds to the
> whitelist as they post.

Oh, I had not noticed that this list now lived on IETF mail infrastructure.

I believe it's straightforward to configure individual lists as "accept posts from addresses subscribed
to any IETF list, otherwise hold for moderator approval". That'd be a good additional option.

I don't remember exactly how you configure this (it's been a while since I ran the IAB list) but it's
effectively a reference to an external whitelist, which itself is the cat | uniq of all subscriber lists.

Joe

On 2/9/2012 11:29 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>
>
> On 2/9/2012 8:01 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
>> With respect to (3), if this is mailman I think there's a handy 
>> button for "allow this post, and any future posts from this person 
>> regardless of whether they are subscribed to the list". In the case 
>> where a post from a non-subscriber triggers an active thread, that 
>> can help stop the conversation becoming stilted and confusing due to 
>> moderator lag.
>
> Right.  That's what prompted me to think of the parenthetical 
> enhancement to manual acceptance.

When the posting is a response to a thread by someone else, this is the 
option I usually pick in similar situations .

However, if they are *starting* a thread, I think it's fair to require 
them to subscribe.

     Tony Hansen

Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat	Sun

		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29

23	May 2012
29	April 2012
39	March 2012
69	February 2012
8	January 2012
3	December 2011
23	November 2011
17	October 2011
2	September 2011
41	August 2011
50	July 2011
63	June 2011
41	May 2011
9	April 2011
18	March 2011
44	February 2011
1	January 2011
1	October 2010
3	September 2010
15	August 2010
2	July 2010
11	June 2010
36	May 2010
4	April 2010
23	March 2010
14	February 2010
37	January 2010
50	December 2009
14	November 2009
8	October 2009
14	September 2009
4	August 2009
14	July 2009
14	June 2009
6	May 2009
4	April 2009
6	March 2009
98	February 2009
22	January 2009
18	December 2008
20	November 2008
40	October 2008
9	September 2008
24	August 2008
25	July 2008
16	June 2008
1	May 2008
16	April 2008
30	March 2008
93	February 2008
56	January 2008
23	December 2007
49	November 2007
10	October 2007
9	September 2007
7	August 2007
25	July 2007
22	June 2007
26	May 2007
98	April 2007
123	March 2007
20	February 2007
30	January 2007
3	December 2006
44	November 2006
22	October 2006
20	September 2006
32	August 2006
32	July 2006
40	June 2006
14	May 2006
21	April 2006
99	March 2006
98	February 2006
37	January 2006
6	December 2005
19	November 2005
97	October 2005
37	September 2005
39	August 2005
22	July 2005
26	June 2005
56	May 2005
229	April 2005
37	March 2005
74	February 2005
104	January 2005

Conversion errors

Unable to Validate File

Generating Text output in ASCII format

Expanding internal references and generating txt

File is gone -- did you click reload?

Re: Conversion errors

accepting legitimate posts from non-members?

Re: accepting legitimate posts from non-members?

Re: accepting legitimate posts from non-members?

Re: accepting legitimate posts from non-members?

Re: accepting legitimate posts from non-members?

Re: accepting legitimate posts from non-members?

Re: accepting legitimate posts from non-members?

Re: accepting legitimate posts from non-members?