[rfc-i] [IAB] draft-iab-xml2rfc-03, "2.19 <displayreference> "
Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)
jhildebr at cisco.com
Wed Mar 2 08:30:55 PST 2016
OK, here's an approach that would simplify things a little bit for the output formatters:
- add a reference/@targetdisplay attribute
- after the preptool has included all references
- have the preptool fill in reference/@display with either displayreference/@to or reference/@target
- preptool removes <displayreference>
- preptool sorts references by reference/@display if rfc/@sortRefs is true
I understand that this doesn't change much in terms of the amount of code to be written. However, I think it makes it more likely that future output formatters will not ignore <displayreference>.
On 3/2/16, 9:13 AM, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
>On 2016-03-02 17:05, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> On 2 Mar 2016, at 7:42, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) wrote:
>>> 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?
>> I think the functionality of <displayreference> is extremely important
>> for RFC readability. From the v3 doc:
>> This element gives a mapping between the anchor of a reference and a
>> name that will be displayed instead. This allows authors to display
>> more mnemonic anchor names for automatically-included references.
>> The mapping in this element only applies to <xref> elements whose
>> format is "default".
>> When I was editing the IKEv2 specs, which had a zillion references to
>> older RFCs, using descriptive names in the references helped
>> implementers understand what they were reading. I have been told by
>> other RFC authors that it has been useful to them as well.
>That part can be achieved by changing the anchor attribute in the
><reference> element (once it's pasted into the XML source, which for
>some reason some people do not like).
>> I understand that some names might not be useable as "to" references
>> because the allowed format for those references is limited; I don't
>Hmm, which? Example? We have a "political" restriction to US-ASCII (not
>yet in the spec perhaps), but other than that?
>> think that's a good enough reason to get rid of the functionality. If
>> some people can't make he "to" references exactly what they want, that's
>> a limitation we should live with.
>> I'm fine with the idea that the prep tool will remove <displayreference>
>> from the prepped XML if we can do so.
>How is it supposed to do that when to="3GBLA"?
>Best regards, Julian
More information about the rfc-interest