[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 

Best regards, Julian

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list