Closed str4d closed 11 months ago
toml's date construct requires a full date which an I-D does need that, but an RFC doesn't.
think it's fine for the RFC editor to remove this attribute from the XML and there should be no workarounds from our side
maybe I can do something here
toml's date construct requires a full date which an I-D does need that, but an RFC doesn't.
Yep, I have confirmation from the RFC Editor that the day attribute indeed should be present for an I-D, but not for an RFC.
What went wrong?
The RFC Editor has informed me that:
mmark
renders the document date in the title boilerplate here: https://github.com/mmarkdown/mmark/blob/3944c1c00c36aa11468fcc21f32410f920be3463/render/xml/title.go#L177-L196 (at least, I think it's here; but that renderer hard-codes "January" as the month, and I can't find anywhere else that renders title dates).This renderer does allow for the
day
attribute to be omitted (if it is zero); however, there is no syntax for encoding such a date into the Markdown source.mmark
should omit theday
attribute from the<date>
boilerplate element (for non-April-1 RFCs), and maybe also permit adate
item in the title block that doesn't include a day.What version of mmark are you using?
2.2.39
What is the most minimal markdown snippets that shows the problem?
renders:
If I try to explicitly set the day to zero (
2023-11-00
), I get the following error (and similarly if I leave off the day and use2023-11
):If I try to set the date field to
"November 2023"
, I get the following error: