[rfc-i] draft-hoffman-xml2rfc-04 - xref/@section
paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Thu Mar 20 09:10:09 PDT 2014
On Mar 20, 2014, at 8:51 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
> On 2014-03-20 16:36, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> On Mar 20, 2014, at 12:48 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
>>> - 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.
> Not sure what you are referring to.
> The link in the generated HTML for a vanilla xref to a reference should go the entry in the references section.
> The reference itself can have a @target attribute. My proposal is to result the relative reference against that target URI. So in general the resulting target for the section reference would be a child/secondary resource of the target (and yes, we could automatically test that).
I might have misunderstood the implementation. x:rel is only the relative part of the URL? If so, that would allay my fear.
>>> 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.
> I would have made a more concrete proposal if my current experimental syntax would be nicer. It would be cool if we could select the desired format with a single attribute, instead of adding another one (which I did because I didn't want to modify RFC2629's format attribute).
I don't think it is onerous to have a second, optional attribute to change the output.
More information about the rfc-interest