Re: [xml2rfc-dev] V3 breakage in formatting internet draft references

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

On 01.10.2019 23:19, Heather Flanagan wrote:
> ...
>>> "<t>The author's name (initial followed by family name) appears on the
>>> first line of the heading.  Some variation, such as additional
>>> initials or capitalization of family name, is acceptable.  Once the
>>> author has selected how their name should appear, they should use
>>> that display consistently in all of their documents.</t>"
>>
>> That's about the front page, not for references.
>
> Iirc, we’ve always tried to be consistent between what’s on the front
> page and what’s in the references.
> ...

Well, but we are not consistent right now.

>> For the latter, the draft style guide says in
>> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-flanagan-7322bis-03#section-4.8.6.4>:
>>
>>>   [SYMBOLIC-TAG]  Last name, First initial., Ed. (if applicable) and
>>>   First initial.  Last name, Ed. (if applicable), "I-D Title", Internet
>>>   Draft, draft-string-NN, Month Year.
>>
>> Note: "first initial”.
>
> “Second initial if provided” is a really ugly example, but I can add it
> if you think it’s critical.

That would still be inconsistent with the front page, no?

> ...
>>>> 4) A URI ontools.ietf.org <http://tools.ietf.org/>is inserted that
>>>> I'd prefer not to have here.
>>>
>>> Why not? I think having a URI makes a lot of sense.
>>
>> The style guide doesn't say so. The author didn't provide one. Why is
>> the tool inserting something automatically? Also, why totools.ietf.org
>> <http://tools.ietf.org/>?
>> Are you planning to put that into the style guide?
>
> Well, there are always things the authors don’t provide that are
> automatically added. And since we’ve been talking about making sure that
> internal links to specific sections are included (which perforce MUST go
> to tools references) the thought was to be consistent and have the
> reference point to the same place that the internal section pointers are
> going to send people. I think it would be confusing to have one set of
> links go one place, and another set of links to somewhere entirely
> different.

Well.

Right now the tools target is only inserted when none is specified, so
this is not in line what you're arguing for.

Also, for RFCs the target uses https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfcNNNN,
which also is not the URI used for the section links.

Best regards, Julian