[rfc-i] [IAB] draft-iab-xml2rfc-03, "2.19 <displayreference> "

Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) jhildebr at cisco.com
Tue Mar 1 15:27:15 PST 2016

(note: redirected to rfc-interest)

Nod.  The last time we talked about this, nobody piped up with that example, and we did the best we could to try to understand the intent.  <displayreference> is pretty complicated in its side-effects, and we need to get them nailed down.  

Given the following input fragments:

<xref target='STD69'/>

<displayreference target="STD69" to="EPP"/>
<referencegroup anchor="STD69">
  <xi:include href='reference.RFC.5734.xml'/>
  <xi:include href='reference.RFC.5730.xml'/>
  <xi:include href='reference.RFC.5731.xml'/>
  <xi:include href='reference.RFC.5732.xml'/>
  <xi:include href='reference.RFC.5733.xml'/>

So far I have these assumptions about the HTML format:

- What goes in the xref/@target is the *original* name of the reference, STD69

- The xref is displayed as "[EPP]", with a link

- The href of the link in the displayed xref is "#STD69"

- The <referencegroup> gets sorted according to the <displayreference>

- The <referencegroup> is displayed as [EPP]

- The ID of the <referencegroup> as displayed  is "STD69"

- <relref>'s in this document must point to "STD69"

- Links generated from <relref displayFormat="of" target="EPP" section="2.3"/> (aside from being nonsensical for <referencegroup>) would generate a link to "#STD69", displayed as "[EPP]".  Same with displayFormat="parens"

- <relref>'s in OTHER documents probably have to refer to STD69, not EPP.  I'm not sure how they're supposed to figure that out, but hopefully nobody ever does that.

- All of the above is the same for displayreference/@target's that are <reference>'s.

What else have I missed?

Note: I would still be fine with dropping <displayreference> all together for being too complicated.

Joe Hildebrand

On 3/1/16, 2:22 PM, "IAB on behalf of Julian Reschke" <iab-bounces at iab.org on behalf of julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:

>"It is expected that this element will only be valid in input documents."
>As opposed to?
>"...It will be likely be removed by prep tools when preparing a final 
>version after those tools have replaced all of the associated anchors, 
>targets, and derivedContent attributes."
>I'm not sure how this can work. One of the use cases for 
><displayreference> was to choose a citation tag that might not be valid 
>as anchor, such as "3G..." (invalid because of leading digit).
>Best regards, Julian

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list