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

Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@levkowetz.com> Tue, 09 April 2019 11:47 UTC

Return-Path: <henrik@levkowetz.com>
X-Original-To: rfc-markdown@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rfc-markdown@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23AD21207C0; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 04:47:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 TyuUrV9iwyaA; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 04:47:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zinfandel.tools.ietf.org (zinfandel.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2001:1890:126c::1:2a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8E55212078D; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 04:47:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from h-202-242.a357.priv.bahnhof.se ([158.174.202.242]:61133 helo=tannat.localdomain) by zinfandel.tools.ietf.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <henrik@levkowetz.com>) id 1hDpDX-0001ZP-PW; Tue, 09 Apr 2019 04:47:08 -0700
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org, xml2rfc@ietf.org
References: <E1hDSIW-0008DY-Hl@durif.tools.ietf.org> <c8d8c9e9-88dd-8c49-c1d4-e0438c56a03c@gmx.de> <f41d8ba2-7078-0ffa-3e41-6f8bc1d0f766@levkowetz.com> <dfcbd237-bbff-867d-b704-cb874c4b2ed3@gmx.de>
Cc: rfc-markdown@ietf.org
From: Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@levkowetz.com>
Message-ID: <b760846d-5183-ad8a-dd42-62a7800bdbf6@levkowetz.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2019 13:47:00 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <dfcbd237-bbff-867d-b704-cb874c4b2ed3@gmx.de>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="4XOPUJC2h9l4V4duqwDSAS986wXv1EUw6"
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 158.174.202.242
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rfc-markdown@ietf.org, xml2rfc@ietf.org, xml2rfc-dev@ietf.org, julian.reschke@gmx.de
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: henrik@levkowetz.com
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 26 Dec 2011 16:24:06 +0000)
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on zinfandel.tools.ietf.org)
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfc-markdown/zZGS_xwkTpZt2ZkqBNEmxWfWegg>
Subject: Re: [Rfc-markdown] initials handling, was: [xml2rfc] New xml2rfc release: v2.22.3
X-BeenThere: rfc-markdown@ietf.org
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." <rfc-markdown.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rfc-markdown>, <mailto:rfc-markdown-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rfc-markdown/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfc-markdown@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfc-markdown-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-markdown>, <mailto:rfc-markdown-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2019 11:47:11 -0000

On 2019-04-09 13:37, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 09.04.2019 13:21, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
>> ...
>>> 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.
>> ...
> 
> Wow, a nice new requirement.
> 
> It would be great if changes like these would be communicated by the RFC
> Editor. (Or did I miss something?)

This came up as a difference between the legacy rendering and the v3 rendering.
I haven't dug into exactly which heuristics the legacy rendering used to
make the distinction.  The idea that the reference entries should reflect
what was actually published isn't new; if anything it's been a consistent
expectation for a long long time.


	Henrik