[rfc-i] For v3: Better identification for multi-document sets

Julian Reschke 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
>     recursion.
>      > > 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
>     different
>     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.
>
> Nico
> --

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 mailing list