[rfc-i] date-less citations
cabo at tzi.org
Sun May 14 22:12:10 PDT 2017
> On May 15, 2017, at 06:37, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
> On 2017-05-14 23:40, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>>> is there an agreement about how to reference things that have no publiccation date (for whatever reason)?
>> There are two main reasons:
>> — the date is not given on the document (because the author didn’t think this was an archival document, forgot to date, …).
>> - there was no publication date in that sense (e.g., for a web page that is continually being updated)
>> For the first, I like to have some indication of “no date” (and we can discuss whether “n.d.” is Latin enough here :-).
>> For the second case, the date-less reference may make most sense:
>>> xml2rfc doesn't allow skipping <date>, but it does allow leaving out all attributes, and this generates a date-less reference entry.
>>> However, recently, I have seen many documents saying "n.d.", which I believe originates from the use of kramdown-rfc2629 (abusing the date element, FWIW).
>> I don’t see n.d. as an abuse at all (RFC 7749, 2.13):
>> In the case of bibliographic references, the date information can
>> have prose text for the month or year.
> But "no date" or "n.d." is not a date, not even in prose.
No, but it is “date information”.
>> The default in kramdown-rfc is “n.d.” if the date: member of the yaml is not given or null.
>> (This is the default so the proofreader is reminded to do something about missing dates.)
>> You can set the date explicitly to false to get a date-less reference.
> > ...
> Thanks, do you have an example for that?
title: 'NETCONF Central: library of YANG modules'
- org: YUMAworks
(Sorry about the seriesinfo — this was the way it was done in the XML from which this was automatically translated to markdown.)
More information about the rfc-interest