[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
>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?
More information about the rfc-interest