[rfc-i] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-hoffman-xml2rfc-18.txt
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Tue May 26 23:11:33 PDT 2015
On 2015-05-27 08:00, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2015-05-26 23:27, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> > ...
> > - A change in the design of relative references. In earlier drafts,
> relative references were done as additional attributes in <xref>; in the
> new draft, <xref> acts as it does in v2, and there is a new <relref>
> element for relative references. This was done to make it easier for
> authors to understand how the XML they create will be processed. Please
> read <eref> and <relref> and <xref> for a complete description,
> including examples of how the HTML for each might be rendered.
> > ...
> FWIW, I strongly disagree with this change. I don't believe it helps
> implementers, and it also makes things harder for authors.
After reading further, I see that I missed additional attributes that
weren't mentioned in the introduction.
> The frequent idiom of
> See Section x of [RFCyyyy]
> previously was
> See <xref section="x" format="of" target="RFCyyyy"/>
> now becomes:
> See <relref section="x" target="RFCyyyy"/> of <xref target="RFCyyyy"/>
you can use
See <relref section="x" sectionFormat="of" target="RFCyyyy"/>
while in the previous draft you'd have used:
See <xref section="x" sectionFormat="of" target="RFCyyyy"/>
So <xref> was simplified, but <relref> was added which has exactly the
same complexity as <xref> with respect to crossreferencing <references>.
(It also lost two sectionFormat values, but that's a different story.)
For authors this means that when they make their <xref> more specific,
they need to switch to a different element.
For implementers of tools this means that they have two distinct
elements that overlap in functionality.
I still have no clue how this is better than what we had before.
Best regards, Julian
More information about the rfc-interest