[rfc-i] Author names in RFC references
paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Mon Mar 24 08:38:44 PDT 2014
From the xml2rfc mailing list, but very much relevant to the Last Call for the Style Guide.
FWIW, I'm also in favor of fixing the Style Guide to follow CMOS instead of continuing with Jon's scheme.
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Elwyn Davies <elwynd at dial.pipex.com>
> Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Author names in RFC references
> Date: March 23, 2014 at 3:55:14 PM PDT
> To: Joachim Fabini <Joachim.Fabini at tuwien.ac.at>
> Cc: xml2rfc at ietf.org
> I looked into the origin of this naming scheme (which I also thought was rather odd). As far as I could discover it was Jon Postel's slightly idiosyncratic scheme which was possibly a misinterpretation of the Chicago Manual of Style.
> The Chicago Manual of Style ref style might be:
> Mouse, Mickey, Daffy Duck, and Donald Duck, "A cartoon", ....
> [This was intended so that refs that used the author name as the ref anchor could be sorted in author surname order I suspect. If numerical refs are used the names are all in conventional order i.e., Mickey Mouse, Daffy Duck, etc.]
> whereas RFCs use
> Mouse, M., Duck, D., and Donald Duck, "A cartoon", ...
> There isn't really any logic to it AFAICS... we just have to live with it.
> Sent from my ASUS Pad
> Joachim Fabini <Joachim.Fabini at tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
>> Dear group,
>> a question concerning the reference section, in particular the display
>> of author names of publications referenced by RFCs:
>> xml2rfc uses two distinct variants for displaying a) the name of the
>> _last_ co-author in the author's list and b) all other author names.
>> The last co-author in a publication's author list is shown as "F.
>> Lastname" whereas all others are shown as "Lastname, F.". Is this
>> inconsistent naming really by design (suppose it is, as it has been used
>> already in early RFCs)?
>> Could someone please detail on the rationale behind?
>> xml2rfc mailing list
>> xml2rfc at ietf.org
> xml2rfc mailing list
> xml2rfc at ietf.org
More information about the rfc-interest