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

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

On 22.04.2019 16:35, Heather Flanagan wrote:
> On Apr 21, 2019, 10:23 PM -0700, Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>,
> wrote:
>> On 11.04.2019 17:06, Heather Flanagan wrote:
>>> ...
>>> 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.
>>
>> If you're not planning a revision anytime soon, you may want to document
>> this in detail at <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/> or file
>> an erratum.
>
> I agree - I’ll work with the RPC on updating the web portion of the
> style guide.
>
>>
>>> 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.
>>> ...
>>
>> I still don't get this. Is there a well-defined algorithm to decide the
>> detailed format? I guess so, otherwise it could not be placed into the
>> formatter. In this case, please publish it. And if there is one, just
>> get the <reference> files updated accordingly. (And yes, I volunteer, if
>> the algorithm is clear).
>>
>>
>
> Ah, volunteering! I love that! Let me talk to Sandy and Alice to see how
> best to move this forward.
> ...

Can we start with a precise problem statement? How exactly is the rule
for initials for author names different in these ancient RFCs?

Best regards, Julian