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

[Heather Flanagan <[e-mail]>]

> On Apr 9, 2019, at 09:01, Julian Reschke <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> On 09.04.2019 17:37, HANSEN, TONY L wrote:
>> On 4/9/19, 8:19 AM, "Julian Reschke" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>>     On 09.04.2019 14:11, HANSEN, TONY L wrote:
>>     > ...
>>     > How is the requirement to generate a single initial communicated within the XML? By looking at the RFC number? Or by a different attribute specified somewhere? While using the RFC number might seem simpler, I think it's better to be transparent and use an attribute.
>>     > ...
>> 
>>     Yes.
>> 
>>     But we really should ask the RFC Editor whether they are sure about
>>     this. After all, it seems to be a violation of the style guide:
>>     <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7322#section-4.8.6.2>.
>> 
>> For re-rendering old RFCs that were originally written using a previous style guide? The interesting thing about style guides is that they do change over time.
> 
> Yes, but in that case the rendering depends on the RFC the reference
> appears in, not on the referenced document.
> 
> FWIW, it would be great if revisions to the style guide also defined a
> precise start date from which the rules apply.
> 
>> I know that we've had various means of doing these stylistic machinations through the years, such as code that says "if rfc number < some value, do this special stylistic processing" or "if public date is before some value, do this special stylistic processing ". The reason I asked my question was that I don't know how the current V3 code is making its decisions for these stylistic issues. My suggestion above is that instead of having code like that, it should instead be "if some <rfc> attribute is set, do this to the initials".

Hi all,

I’m discussing this with Sandy and Alice now; a response to the list may take a day or so as I’m traveling at the moment.

-Heather

>