Re: [xml2rfc] xml2rfc online: references to I-Ds and associated dates

[Henrik Levkowetz <[e-mail]>]

Hi Heather,

Below:

On 2019-07-12 18:51, Heather Flanagan wrote:
> On Jul 12, 2019, 6:40 AM -0700, Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>, wrote:
>> On 12.07.2019 15:16, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
>> > Hi John,
>> >
>> > On 2019-07-11 23:51, John C Klensin wrote:
>> > > Hi.
>> > >
>> > > I happened to look today at the reference produced for an I-D by
>> > > xml2rfc (at least by the online version at
>> > > https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/ )
>> > >
>> > > The XML for the relevant cited I-D says (irrelevant material
>> > > elided and the identity of the I-D changed to avoid
>> > > distractions):
>> > >
>> > > <reference <reference anchor="ID.draft-ietf-foo-bar"
>> > > target="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-foo-bar/">
>> > > ...
>> > > <date month="June" day="12" year="2019" />
>> > > </front>
>> > > </reference>
>> > >
>> > > The output is "June 2019".
>> >
>> > After looking through various output formats, my conclusion here
>> > is that this is the output from the v2 text formatter, not the
>> > v3 text formatter. The v3 text formatter renders the date with
>> > day, month, and year if all 3 are given. So going forward, it
>> > seems that this has already been addressed (assuming we leave the
>> > v2 formatter untouched at this late stage in its life cycle).
>> > ...
>>
>> Hmmm.
>>
>> That seems to be a rather big change to be introduced without notice.
>>
>> I think the first thing that needs to happen is the RFC Style Guide
>> would need to say how to handle the format. Right now it says "year
>> month", and this is what tools have been generating for ages.
>>
>> Heather?
>>
> 
> HI,
> 
> April 1st RFCs should be the only ones with the day listed in the
> date. Everything else should be month/year. I don’t think this should
> necessarily be up to the author. That makes it something else the
> author has to consider, OR something the RFC Editor has to follow up
> on. It also becomes a semantically important implication to a far
> greater (and therefore more confusing) extent than the April 1st
> situation.
> 
> So, while I think we need the option for a date, it should be hidden
> for the majority of RFCs. Internet Drafts have the version number,
> and the Work in Progress label, and changes to that are a different
> topic we can discuss later.

The current v3 tools will use day, month, and year if provided in the
references file, but as the RFC references only provide month and year,
except for April 1st RFCs, they will be rendered with only month and
year as references.  Drafts, as they normally have day, month, and year
in the references file, will be rendered with day, month, and year as
references.  The only adjustment I think might be necessary in the v3
renderers would be if you would like draft references to be rendered
without day when rendering an RFC.

Best regards,

	Henrik