(this is really for Murray) On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 6:25 PM Murray S. Kucherawy <superu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Looks good to me where it is. I would add "(PSL)", introducing the > acronym, right after its first use if we decide to leave it there. > > A formatting thing to take care of at some point: Anyplace you refer to > DMARC, the protocol, just have it as "DMARC" (e.g., "not exempt from DMARC > policy"); anyplace you refer to DMARC, the specification (e.g., "Section > a.b.c of DMARC" or similar), it should be the <xref target="..."> ... > </xref> sorta deal so that it pops out as a reference. > > So the xref for RFC7489 were created of this form: <xref target="RFC7489">DMARC</xref> and submitted into the submission system, the HTML document will have this look: DMARC [RFC7489] (Link is mapped to [RFC7489]) and the HTML is [<a href="./rfc7489" title=""Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance (DMARC)"">RFC7489</a>]However, when I run xml2rfc (v3.5.0) locally the However, when I run xml2rfc (v3.5.0) locally, the HTML shows the text "DMARC" as a link and the HTML is <a href="#RFC7489" class="xref">DMARC</a> So this makes my brain hurt. I'm going to revisit this in the morning. tim
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
