Re: [Rfc-markdown] initials handling, was: [xml2rfc] New xml2rfc release: v2.22.3

[Henrik Levkowetz <[e-mail]>]

Hi Julian,

On 2019-04-08 13:50, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 08.04.2019 13:18, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> This is an automatic notification about a new xml2rfc release,
>> v2.22.3, generated when running the mkrelease script.
>>
>> Release notes:
>>
>> xml2rfc (2.22.3) ietf; urgency=medium
>>
>>    This release brings further tweaks and imporvements to the v3 text
>>    format output in the area of Table of Content formatting, and fixes a
>>    number of bugs.
>>
>>    * Tweaked the handling of ToC page numbers in the v3 text format.
>>
>>    * Tweaked the xml inserted by the preptool for the ToC to give ToC
>>      indentation and spacing which better match the legacy text format
>>      (and also looks better).
>>
>>    * Added a rewrite of <svg> viewBox values to the simplest acceptable
>>      format, to make sure it will be understood by our pdf generation libs.
>>
>>    * Added a test case for <xref section=...>
>>
>>    * Tweaked the section label for fragment <xref> rendering to say
>>      'Appendix' instead of 'Section' for appendix references.
>>
>>    * Added a pre-rfc1272 reference to elements.xml to test the author
>>      initials handling for early RFCs.
>>
>>    * Tweaked the get_initials() code for use on <reference> authors.
>>      Refactored part of the text.render_reference() code to support
>>      get_initials() properly.
>>
>>    * Added special initials handling for RFCs 1272 and below, to apply the
>>      single initials handling enforced at that time.
>> ...
> 
> Shouldn't the initials handling depend on what RFC the reference appears
> in (as opposed to what RFC is being cited)???

The RFC-Editor has requested that the rendering should match the front page
of the RFC in question, and provided the information that RFC 1272 and
earlier should be limited to one initial, irrespective of what's given in
the <reference> entry.


	Henrik