On 05/11/2020 17:09, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> When referencing RFC's, we have a mix of ulinking to the ietf.org entry and
> not. Also, for subsequent mentions of the same RFC on the same page we have
> some as <acronym> while others are not.
I'm not sure how sensible the <acronym> tag is for these. I mean, yeah,
it's an acronym, but it wouldn't make sense to write it open. It doesn't
seem to affect the formatting in the HTML docs, at least I don't see any
difference in my browser. But let's be consistent.
> The attached patch adds ulinks for all
> RFC's and marks subsequent mentions as acronym to make the docs consistent. It
> also spells all as "RFC <number>" with a whitespace as that was the most
> commonly used spelling (there is no RFC for how to reference to an RFC so we're
> free to choose).
There is RFC 7322, "RFC Style Guide", Section 3.5 Citations
(https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7322#section-3.5). That's for the style
used in RFCs themselves. It recommends "RFC <number>" as well.
> In order to make review easier I haven't fixed linelengths/wrapping, but am
> happy to do that in case this is deemed something we want.
I line-wrapped some of them manually. We're not terribly consistent with
the wrapping in the docs.
Pushed, thanks!
- Heikki