[rfc-i] draft-hoffman-xml2rfc-04 - xref/@section

Paul Hoffman paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Thu Mar 20 08:36:23 PDT 2014


On Mar 20, 2014, at 12:48 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:

> On <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hoffman-xml2rfc-04#section-2.58.3>:
> 
>> 2.58.3. 'section' attribute
>> 
>> 
>>   Specifies a section for the generated reference.  For example,
>> 
>>        See <xref section="2.3" target="RFC6949"/> for more inforation.
>> 
>>   would generate
>> 
>>        See Section 2.3 of [RFC6949] for more information.
> 
> I appreciate the addition, but I think we need a bit more:
> 
> - the impact on non-reference xrefs should be mentioned (ignored/invalid?)

Let's go for "invalid" on all target attributes that don't exist; that will reduce surprise for authors.

> - I believe we need to support at least one additional format, being: "[RFC6949], Section 2.3"

Yes, that seems like a reasonable presentation requirement. But there will be many others, such as:

> - the ability to specify a relative reference (to be resolved against the linked-to document's base URI), so that we can "deep link" into non-IETF documents (see <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-xml2rfc-latest.html#element.rfc.attribute.xml-lang> for an example use)

I'm not happy with that one, because it opens the RFC up to conflicting semantics: the relative reference might not actually be to the same document as the xref.

> PS: see also <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2629xslt/rfc2629xslt.html#ext-rfc2629.xref>

I'm sure someone will want something other than what is there for x:fmt, but it is certainly better than the fixed wording in the current draft. I'll use that for the next draft unless there are any strong objections.

--Paul HOffman


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list