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

Heather Flanagan <> Thu, 11 April 2019 15:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DAC012038D; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 08:06:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Uk5RB021gF8V; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 08:06:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D16E120006; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 08:06:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A08E1C2B53; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 08:06:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eREjFUQfHriH; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 08:06:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D7DA11C38DB; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 08:06:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: Heather Flanagan <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_70EA8E26-3E37-43FE-B9DB-177E25DC9DDC"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.8\))
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 08:06:12 -0700
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
To: Julian Reschke <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.8)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Rfc-markdown] [xml2rfc] initials handling, was: New xml2rfc release: v2.22.3
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "rfc-markdown is a discussion list for people writing I-Ds and RFCs in Markdown and the authors of the tools used for that." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 15:06:19 -0000

> On Apr 9, 2019, at 10:34 AM, Heather Flanagan <> wrote:
>> On Apr 9, 2019, at 09:01, Julian Reschke <> wrote:
>>> On 09.04.2019 17:37, HANSEN, TONY L wrote:
>>> On 4/9/19, 8:19 AM, "Julian Reschke" <> 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:
>>>    <>.
>>> 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.

And coming back to this:

A longstanding principle for referencing RFCs is to make the reference match what is on the front page of the RFC itself, over what information is in any other location. This is something we should be clearer about in the Style Guide, but it is a practice we’ve enforced for quite a long time. 

Changing the tool to match this longstanding practice is not ideal, but it is expedient given that the proper way to handle this is an extensive data cleanup of the citation library. I’ve asked the RPC to prioritize getting documents published and format implementation over this kind of data cleanup for now. 

-Heather Flanagan