[rfc-i] Acknowledgements and Contributors as non-sections

"Martin J. Dürst" duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
Sat Apr 12 02:20:12 PDT 2014

Hello Julian,

On 2014/04/12 15:42, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2014-04-11 22:04, Nico Williams wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Julian Reschke
>> <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
>>> On 2014-04-11 18:05, Nico Williams wrote:
>>>> I'm missing something.  What's the problem with unnumbered sections?
>>>> They can still have anchors.  They can still be referenced from within
>>>> the document as well as from outside.  If xml2rfc can't generate said
>>>> anchors or references, well, then it should learn.
>>> Well, it's harder to reference them, in particular in the current (plain
>>> text) format.
>> Why?   Instead of #section-<n> you'd have #<unnumbered-section-anchor>
>> as the URI fragment.
> But what would be in the plain text? Also, rfcmarkup wouldn't be able to
> hyperlink those.

I think this has been mentioned already several times on this list, but 
what's wrong about e.g. "see Acknowledgment"? As for rfcmarkup, it's 
just a tool, and can be fixed/improved.

>> Unnumbered sections would have to have user-defined anchors to be
>> referenceable, something like:
>> <section unnumbered="true" anchor="ackowledgements"
>> title="Acknowledgements">

Hopefully with correct spelling, i.e. <section unnumbered="true" 
anchor="acknowledgments" title="Acknowledgments">. I get it wrong myself 
quite often, too :-(.

>>>> Unnumbered sections work just fine in other systems.
>>> Example?
>> LyX (and therefore LaTeX).
> How do they treat interleaving numbered and unnumbered sections? Is this
> allowed?

How would that create any technical problems at all? I'm sure LaTeX 
allows this, but it may depend on the style file used. See e.g. 
http://wiki.contextgarden.net/Unnumbered_Sections (which also describes 
how to do it in context, a system that I don't know at all.).

I agree that a publication that mixed numbered and unnumbered sections 
at the same level willy-nilly wouldn't look good, but that's not a 
technical problem, and that's not what we are talking about.

Regards,  Martin.

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list