[rfc-i] draft-iab-html-rfc-02: references

Paul Hoffman paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Tue Mar 1 08:50:59 PST 2016


On 1 Mar 2016, at 6:12, HANSEN, TONY L wrote:

> On 3/1/16, 12:57 AM, "rfc-interest on behalf of Julian Reschke" 
> <rfc-interest-bounces at rfc-editor.org on behalf of 
> julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
>
>
>> On 2016-02-29 23:06, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) wrote:
>>> Even worse, there might be one, two, or more <references> children 
>>> of <back>.  If there is one, it's the entire References section.  If 
>>> there are two or more, the output formatter has to create a section 
>>> to contain all of the <references> sub-sections.
>>>
>>> One way to make this less error-prone in the output formatters would 
>>> be to make these changes:
>>>
>>> - v3 would add a new <referencesection> element as a child of 
>>> <back>, which can occur at most one time.  If there is a 
>>> <referencesection>, <back> must not include any <references>.  
>>> <referencesection> can contain one or more <references>, and may 
>>> have a <name>
>>>
>>> - if the <referencesection> does not have a <name>, the prepTool 
>>> adds one with the text "References"
>>>
>>> - referencesection/name gets slugified by the preptool, as all 
>>> <name> elements do
>>>
>>> - if the prepTool sees more than one <references> child of <back>, 
>>> it creates a new <referencesection> element (if one doesn't exist), 
>>> and moves the existing <references> children of <back> to instead be 
>>> children of <referencesection>
>>>
>>> - the prepTool would assign part numbers to <referencesection> and 
>>> <references> starting with the next-highest number from those used 
>>> in middle/section/@pn, and treating referencesection/references as a 
>>> sub-section
>>>
>>> - if there is only a single <references> child of <back>, it remains 
>>> unchanged by the preptool, other than getting a @pn
>>
>> That sounds like a really complicate plan for fixing something that 
>> the
>> existing tools have handled just fine in the past. I'd just stick 
>> with
>> the status quo.
>
> I'm with Julian on this one.

...and yet we still have no text specifying what "the existing tools" 
do. In trying to determine what "the existing tools" do, the set of 
steps seem to have a lot of guessing in them. If that's wrong, it would 
be good to have some text that shows what happens.

--Paul Hoffman


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list