[Rfc-markdown] <referencegroup>, was: [xml2rfc-dev] New xml2rfc release: v2.18.0

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

On 06.02.2019 22:39, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
> ...
>    * Adjusted the text rendering of reference annotations to match the html
>      rendering better.  Added support for <referencegroup> target rendering.
>      Suppressed rendering of target URLs for individual entries in a
>      referencegroup.
> ...

With that, I'm getting output such as:

>    [STD69]    Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)",
>               STD 69, RFC 5730, DOI 10.17487/RFC5730, August 2009.
> 
>               Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
>               Domain Name Mapping", STD 69, RFC 5731,
>               DOI 10.17487/RFC5731, August 2009.
> 
>               Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
>               Host Mapping", STD 69, RFC 5732, DOI 10.17487/RFC5732,
>               August 2009.
> 
>               Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
>               Contact Mapping", STD 69, RFC 5733, DOI 10.17487/RFC5733,
>               August 2009.
> 
>               Hollenbeck, S., "Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP)
>               Transport over TCP", STD 69, RFC 5734,
>               DOI 10.17487/RFC5734, August 2009.

So the links to the RFCs are gone.

This matches slightly more what RFC 7322 says in 
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7322#section-4.8.6.3>:

>       [STDXXX]  Last name, First initial., Ed. (if applicable),
>                 "RFC Title", Sub-series number, RFC number, Date of
>                 publication.
> 
>                 Last name, First initial., Ed. (if applicable)
>                 and First initial. Last name, Ed. (if applicable),
>                 "RFC Title", Sub-series number, RFC number, Date of
>                 publication.
> 
>                 <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/std#>

...but it still misses the link to the "aggregate" page.

Now doing this properly (without weird heuristics) requires a vocabulary 
change (see 
<https://github.com/rfc-format/draft-iab-xml2rfc-v3-bis/issues/10>, 
raised over two years ago).

If we are in a hurry, and it seems we are, I would suggest to drop 
<referencegroup> for now instead of doing something that is known to be 
broken. And yes, I'm saying this after spending several hours over the 
previous weekend to get <referencegroup> support into rfc2629.xslt.

Best regards, Julian