[rfc-i] draft-iab-html-rfc-02: references

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Thu Mar 3 04:55:51 PST 2016


On 2016-03-03 02:49, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
> On 2016/03/02 04:48, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) wrote:
>> On 3/1/16, 11:59 AM, "HANSEN, TONY L" <tony at att.com> wrote:
>
>>> I see three choices:
>>>
>>> 1) Require the processors to all follow the multiple pass rules, or
>>> act like it did by back-patching
>>
>> They still have to get the section number right.  Remember that
>> <references> are in <back>, but are numbered as if they are in
>> <middle>, which is surprising as a output formatter author.
>>
>> Another approach I'd be fine with is number the references sections as
>> R.1 ... R.n, which would conflict with an Appendix R, which I hope
>> never happens.
>
> Another approach would be to not number (or otherwise label) the
> reference section. This is what a lot (it may even be the majority) of
> books and journal formats do, and what I personally find easier to use.
>
> This may not solve the structuring problem, but hopefully would make it
> easier.

It's another way to do things, but it would be inconsistent with the 
existing body of RFCs and the current style guide (see, for instance 
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7322#section-4>).

Best regards, Julian



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list