[rfc-i] [IAB] draft-iab-xml2rfc-03, "2.19 <displayreference> "
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Tue Mar 1 22:32:23 PST 2016
On 2016-03-02 00:27, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) wrote:
> (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"
That follows from the first point, right?
> - The <referencegroup> gets sorted according to the <displayreference>
I haven't thought about <referencegroup> yet, but that does sound right.
> - The <referencegroup> is displayed as [EPP]
> - The ID of the <referencegroup> as displayed is "STD69"
> - <relref>'s in this document must point to "STD69"
They behave the same as <xref>, yes.
> - 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"
No, they would generate an error. relref/@target needs to reference an
@anchor in the document, otherwise the XML is invalid.
> - <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.
Yes. (But why would another document want to reference an entry in a
different document's references section?
> - All of the above is the same for displayreference/@target's that are <reference>'s.
Yes; I don't think the addition of <referencegroup> changes anything.
> What else have I missed?
> Note: I would still be fine with dropping <displayreference> all together for being too complicated.
It addresses two use cases:
a) Citation tags that are not valid as IDs, such as those starting with
b) People including references from other sources, thus loosing control
over what citation tag they get.
a) is a real use case (although a bit on the edge). For b) I have less
sympathy (if including things hurts, don't do it; copy & paste works as
Best regards, Julian
More information about the rfc-interest