[rfc-i] For v3: Better identification for multi-document sets
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Sun Dec 29 12:18:58 PST 2013
On 2013-12-29 21:10, Nico Williams wrote:
> On Sunday, December 29, 2013, Jim Schaad wrote:
> > > On Saturday, December 28, 2013 1:59 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> > On 2013-12-28 22:28, Jim Schaad wrote:
> > >
> > > Another issue that needs to be considered is the question of
> > > Should I be able to do
> > >
> > > <reference anchor="Keywords">
> > > <reference anchor="BCPXXXX">
> > > <reference anchor="RFC2119">
> > It's an interesting thought; do we have a use case?
> Part of this is a question of the best way of addressing things like
> the STD
> and BCP references. If there is an easy inclusion mechanism, it
> might be
> better to include the RFC indirectly rather than directly. This
> makes it
> easier to include only the leaf reference. This also makes it
> easier to do
> references as documents change over time in some respects. If I do
> the xref
> to RFC2119 rather than to BCPXXXX then I would potentially get a
> tag and reference if the BCP is updated to point to a new document.
> I would
> then be able to make a decision later about what I am referencing.
> +1. To me this seems like good design. It allows for vanity reference
> naming and reference cluster naming both in the same and very natural
> way (though it doesn't solve the 3GPP reference naming problem) while
> also allowing specific xrefs to be to individual references in a
> cluster, or even sub-clusters.
Maybe I'm missing something here -- what does this have to do with Jim's
original question about recursion?
Best regards, Julian
More information about the rfc-interest