From: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
---|---|
To: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Pg Docs <pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Consistent reference to RFCs in the documentation |
Date: | 2020-12-01 12:39:04 |
Message-ID: | a06ea0f1-8aa0-3cee-0587-f895387cda12@iki.fi |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-docs |
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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2020-12-01 12:55:27 | Re: Consistent reference to RFCs in the documentation |
Previous Message | Jürgen Purtz | 2020-12-01 08:38:20 | Re: Change JOIN tutorial to focus more on explicit joins |