IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rfc-i] deprecating relref

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@mozilla.com> Mon, 26 April 2021 15:12 UTC

Return-Path: <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA3F03A24A5; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 08:12:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.752
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.752 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=mozilla.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id y8GVSx10UzCL; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 08:12:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D09B73A249A; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 08:12:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB8EEF406D6; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 08:12:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Delivered-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4048F406D6 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 08:12:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Authentication-Results: rfcpa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=mozilla.com
Received: from rfc-editor.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rfcpa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Szvs3KUMSU1C for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 08:12:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd42.google.com (mail-io1-xd42.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d42]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 062B3F406CD for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 08:12:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd42.google.com with SMTP id z14so3815685ioc.12 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 08:12:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mozilla.com; s=google; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=MTydGWnD0opfegqqmYrN2Q2poVRZRtISuzAkFoQQrkg=; b=YzRjAXuMW0o4WT2qVpmFER9J5rm1PgkHmdYxwTgYBk0LoBTAz0+NACTi28Ij0RhZAX uoLBbWV30SgUfBw2be4Nx5nW0auTUVBH9gtfzTM0yim8SYQWK+uqE2lJZyUUoKq4wNAh MT5sjDCSsITYCgao1x0hg3iGgWDA1ZIBA4YI8=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=MTydGWnD0opfegqqmYrN2Q2poVRZRtISuzAkFoQQrkg=; b=iP+NaH5JGB3/zeOjjoRIVfv0ky7R+tb9GZV0ay2he7SPWORi30nBZvq4yPgFPoIDZF DRMKTJPLKjVALUtZHMdlnyefpIXWU770Zmv+dV5BOMcV6MMa446+nrEI+PwWHkA2r3I6 fUM6IEqS8dIfsSTxAueQBfPAj8ywHqJUofhMyL6JuGob1Go2p5XWTIrILxED9Qn03Zxc R/8AlhS3sUOy/KDSVNiRFhRLDFPR51O72zZHlf9QOturhsnyAQreaPJh6xJybyBf1M5u oOioYSO6Dpm1yOTC/ALJggrFR58Tcm5K+FxNVfI5aNkO8/nUpV6X049kjlz564gACO/u 3G7A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531kEEAxudEh82qNZA3LxCMyR8GWcrZNaG9HEn/WcVbLqcjOhkD0 Juc6KPM8oq+nk54u4MbEModLqQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw54yhpGKMWATP/y7NGMQM5byDt2kCGvCuQnAeQwgMatkuNL6u3vqb9p7XX4X23o5xu+wRlNw==
X-Received: by 2002:a02:90cd:: with SMTP id c13mr16717709jag.18.1619449939704; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 08:12:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dragon.local (c-73-78-113-156.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [73.78.113.156]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u11sm7472394iob.33.2021.04.26.08.12.18 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 26 Apr 2021 08:12:19 -0700 (PDT)
To: Kent Watsen <kent@watsen.net>
References: <060157d4-68a0-9729-cf0e-9eaa38ce45d8@mozilla.com> <0100017900eba149-1ec61a85-0716-484f-9772-3938d37392e8-000000@email.amazonses.com>
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@mozilla.com>
Message-ID: <b44e7c12-1b15-0615-1871-9dce7b891f08@mozilla.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 09:12:17 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <0100017900eba149-1ec61a85-0716-484f-9772-3938d37392e8-000000@email.amazonses.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] deprecating relref
X-BeenThere: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions." <rfc-interest.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
Cc: RFC Interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

Hi Kent,

If (as explained below) the unique attributes of relref were migrated to
xref, would you still have a separate need for relref?

Peter

On 4/23/21 4:48 PM, Kent Watsen wrote:
> I’m a drive-by tourist here and just noticing this thread, but I’ve been making extensive use of <relref> in my documents.  Enabling authors to link to the specific section in an RFC is very useful.   
> 
> Looking into <xref>, I’m guessing that linking to an “anchor” is better because it would automatically update if the linked-section moves, such as when the target document is a work-in-progress - yes?
> 
> Kent
> 
> 
> 
>> On Apr 8, 2021, at 8:20 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@mozilla.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> The RFC XML and Style Guide change management team [1] recently
>> discussed the differences between xref and relref elements [2] and
>> determined that (a) relref has not been used in source documents
>> provided by authors and (b) if it had been used, the xml2rfc tool would
>> have transformed relref to xref while adding any of the attributes
>> defined in RFC 7991 for relref but not xref (sectionFormat, section,
>> relative, derivedLink). Therefore our recommendation is to deprecate
>> relref in 7991bis and likely add some or all of the relref attributes to
>> xref.
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> [1]
>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfc-interest/_13Fne0Pxv233coED2BiRY_IJR4/
>>
>> [2] https://github.com/rfc-format/draft-iab-xml2rfc-v3-bis/issues/172
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rfc-interest mailing list
>> rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
> 
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email