Subject: Re: [xml2rfc] Footnotes?

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2012 12:58:05 -0400 (EDT)

> From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>

    > In any case, it would be awesome if we could avoid to make this
    > variable

I guess I don't see why - do you really think the world will notice much if
some RFCs have 'appendixes - references' and others have 'references -
appendixes'? I mean, a quick look at the TOC will tell them where things are.

(I see, looking at a sample TOC, that the References have a section number,
and the Appendixes don't - is that the issue, that if you reverse the order,
doing the number is problematic? I would just not have a section number on the
References: other sections - Abstact, Author's Address, etc - don't.)

    > maybe the other default would be better.

Definitely. If we have to have only one, put the Appendices first.

    > I recommend you bring that up on the rfc-interest mailing list.

In my copious free time... :-)

	Noel

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2012 19:06:06 +0200

> and the Appendixes don't - is that the issue, that if you reverse the order,

The Appendixes are "Numbered" as well (A, B, C, ...)

> References: other sections - Abstact, Author's Address, etc - don't.)

Well, it's a format change; we would need to update quite a few tools.

We may want to address these questions once we make progress with the 
new formats.

> _______________________________________________
> xml2rfc mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xml2rfc
>