--On Friday, May 06, 2011 17:29 -0400 Barry Leiba
<[email protected]> wrote:
>> (4) 4409 used several compound references (one
>> citation anchor, several RFCs). Xml2rfc is quite
>> hostile to those. The pre-evaluation document
>> pointed out that at least a few of them were
>> unnecessary. I've taken them all out. Anyone
>> who objects should speak up.
>
> If you mean things like this:
> [SMTP-MTA, ESMTP]
> ...I only see one, in section 3.1 (that one). The way we
> usually handle that with xml2rfc is simply to use two xrefs,
> to get this: [SMTP-MTA][ESMTP]
No. If you look at 4409, you will see several citations, of
which one example is "[SMTP-MTA]". In 4409, the corresponding
reference is:
Postel... RFC 821...
Partridge... RFC 974...
Braden... RFC 1123...
Klensin... RFC 2821...
i.e., "compound references" in the sense that one anchor
identifies a list of RFCs. While 4409 doesn't use it, exactly
the same problem arises if one chooses to cite an STD or BCP
number that identifies multiple RFCs. That is the construction
to which I claim that xml2rfc is hostile -=the only elegant way
to do it in the current design would be
<reference anchor="SMTP-MTA">
<reference>...Postel... RFC 821...</reference>
<reference>...Partridge... RFC 974...</reference>
<reference>...Braden... RFC 1123... </reference>
<reference>...Klensin... RFC 2821...</reference>
</reference>
And neither nested reference elements nor reference elements
without anchors are permitted by the DTD.
The example you cite above is one of multiple citations at the
same point rather than a single compound citation.. And,
indeed, most style manuals (along with 4409) prefer "[SMTP-MTA,
ESMTP]" to "[SMTP-MTA][ESMTP]". FWIW, I think the tools should
help us get thing right rather than forcing us to do things that
are wrong. But so it goes.
john
_______________________________________________
yam mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
