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

[Heather Flanagan <[e-mail]>]

> On Oct 1, 2019, at 1:52 PM, Julian Reschke <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On 01.10.2019 22:03, Heather Flanagan wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On Oct 1, 2019, at 8:01 AM, Julian Reschke <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> V3:
>>> 
>>>>   [Messaging]
>>>>              Fielding, R., Ed., Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. F. Reschke,
>>>>              Ed., "HTTP/1.1 Messaging", Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
>>>>              httpbis-messaging-05, July 2019,
>>>>              <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-messaging-
>>>>              99>.
>>> 
>>> V2:
>>> 
>>>>   [Messaging]
>>>>              Fielding, R., Ed., Nottingham, M., Ed., and J. Reschke,
>>>>              Ed., "HTTP/1.1 Messaging", draft-ietf-httpbis-messaging-
>>>>              05 (work in progress), July 2019.
>>> 
>>> Observations:
>>> 
>>> 1) author initials not restricted to one anymore (I'm open to change,
>>> but it should be properly documented)
>> 
>> That’s been in the draft style guide for a while.
>> 
>> "<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. 

> 
> For the latter, the draft style guide says in
> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-flanagan-7322bis-03#section-4.8.6.4 <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.

> 
>> .. >> 3) "(work in progress)" is missing
>> 
>> Bug.
> 
> Ack.
> 
>>> 4) A URI on tools.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 to tools.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.

-Heather