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

Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) jhildebr at cisco.com
Wed Mar 2 07:42:41 PST 2016

On 3/1/16, 11:32 PM, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:

>> - 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.

My example was inaccurate.  What about:

<relref displayFormat="of" target="STD69" section="2.3"/>

I think that would generate something with [EPP] in it.

>> - <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?

For example, a document discussing how references should be formatted. :)  If it's not valid to point to any ID in a document using a relref, we should probably give some guidance.

>It addresses two use cases:
>a) Citation tags that are not valid as IDs, such as those starting with 
>a digit.
>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 

It doesn't sound like you're strongly in favor of keeping this functionality.  Are there others who think it's more important than this?

Joe Hildebrand

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list