--On Saturday, April 07, 2007 5:52 PM +0200 Julian Reschke
<julian(_dot_)reschke(_at_)gmx(_dot_)de> wrote:
...
Second, because of the desire to create a universal naming
scheme in the bibliographical libraries, xml2rfc ends up with
symbolic references that look like
[I-D.rfc-editor-rfc2223bis] (one of the less unattractive
ones) or, potentially,
[I-D.draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434-bis]. Those
things cause formatting problems, violate almost every known
style manual about forms for symbolic references, and so on.
If our tools permitted us to use the forms that are
recommended in the rest of the world, such as "[Nart07a]" for
the above, it would be different. But they don't permit
doing so conveniently.
But that's only a problem if you insist to re-use the ID
references provided by xml.resource.org verbatim. If you
instead just paste them in, you can change the anchor to
whatever you like.
In general, I think that referring to IDs by referencing the
bib entry is very dangerous, because one may miss important
changes like section numbering or changes in BNF names when
the draft being referred to progresses.
Well, we agree and that is what I've generally been doing. But,
having recently had a colleague who took over a document
carefully remove my pasted-in I-D references in order to replace
them with library pointers just before forwarding to the RFC
Editor, I'm a little sensitive to this one and suspect that some
additional guidance to the community would be in order.
best,
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf