[rfc-i] Who uses Word, was Proposed new RFC submission requirements

Iljitsch van Beijnum iljitsch at muada.com
Tue Jun 5 03:18:34 PDT 2012


On 5 Jun 2012, at 11:44 , Julian Reschke wrote:

>> That is an illusion.  There are often more references to sections
>> in other documents, and that can not be automatically generated either.

> Depends on whether you happen to have the target document in a version that allows computing the section number.

[...]

> I'm not worried about syntactical correctness but about references pointing to the wrong section. This is not easily checked at all.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding this, but it looks to me like you guys are arguing about automatically generated section numbers and how to link to sections if they are.

Regardless of whether this is done automatically or by hand, during the writing stage, and especially between draft versions, section numbers are going to change. So using them as anchors for references is not a good idea. Better to do this using named anchors for sections.

IMO, during the draft phase section numbers are best automatically generated by the CSS because that frees the author(s) from having to spend time on this. When an RFC is published, the automatically generated numbers can be replaced by hard numbers, which makes sure that they're not mangled accidentally later, for instance, during copy/paste.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list