|
I should have been more clear. This is NOT specific to HTML/HREF rendering. Section references to an RFC without the RFC mentioned is misleading. For example: " DMARC [RFC7489] defines a policy language that domain owners can specify for the domain of the address in a RFC5322.From header.
Section 6.6.1 specifies, somewhat imprecisely, how IDNs in the
RFC5322.From address domain are to be handled. That section is
updated to say that all U-labels in the domain are converted to
A-labels before further processing. Sections 6.7 and 7.1 are
similarly updated to say that all U-labels in domains being handled
are converted to A-labels before further processing."
The above references Section 6.6.1 (and Sections 6.7 and 7.1), but from which RFC(s)? Are these from RFC5322, RFC7489, this draft? This would be somewhat more clear if this had mentioned the intended referenced RFC (7489) in the same
paragraph that the reference is made. For example, In RFC7849, Section… Natural language interpolation is challenging. I agree that there are different ways to reference something that may or may not work with the current renderings. For example: "In RFC7489, Section 6.6.1 … " is equivalent to "Section 6.6.1 [RFC7489]." IMO, authors (in general) should put effort into checking that the various renderings meet expectations. If there are incorrect hyperlinks, fix them or remove
them. The rendering issue is not just HTML, it also effects the PDF rendering. I believe the author is putting in effort to correctly reference the sections, but it's not consistent. The draft does have many references to sections that correctly link.
Take for example: "Section 4.3 of [RFC7208] states that all IDNs in an SPF DNS record MUST be A-labels; this rule is unchanged since any SPF record can be used to authorize either EAI or conventional mail. " Thanks, Tim On 3/11/19, 4:02 PM, "Gen-art on behalf of Barry Leiba" <gen-art-bounces@xxxxxxxx on behalf of
barryleiba@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Thanks for the review, Tim. The html rendering issues are for the RFC editor to deal with, and not in the scope of the draft editors. Barry On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 7:54 AM Tim Evens via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
|
