[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: rfc-ed reference style [Re: Last Call: Instructions to Requestfor Comments (RFC) Authors to BCP]

To: "Ole J. Jacobsen" <ole@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: rfc-ed reference style [Re: Last Call: Instructions to Requestfor Comments (RFC) Authors to BCP]
From: Lloyd Wood <l.wood@eim.surrey.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:44:06 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" <jrace@attglobal.net>, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
In-reply-to: <Pine.HPX.4.44.0303171653160.2784-100000@wells.cisco.com>
Organization: speaking for none
References: <Pine.HPX.4.44.0303171653160.2784-100000@wells.cisco.com>

On Mon, 17 Mar 2003, Ole J. Jacobsen wrote:

> Yep, weird as it seems, it's a standard reference form, one of several.

built in integrity check; if the last author is elided, you notice.

> Have never figured out the logic, but then again neither is the (US)
> convention of placing all punctuation inside quotation marks:

typographical convention for kerning? Seems a lot odder if you're used
to punctuation marks that aren't raised.

L.

<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/><L.Wood@ee.surrey.ac.uk>

References:
- Re: rfc-ed reference style [Re: Last Call: Instructions to Requestfor Comments (RFC) Authors to BCP]
  - From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" <ole@cisco.com>

Prev by Date: BGP as Draft vs. RFC 2385
Next by Date: Re: BGP as Draft vs. RFC 2385
Previous by thread: Re: rfc-ed reference style [Re: Last Call: Instructions to Requestfor Comments (RFC) Authors to BCP]
Next by thread: Re: rfc-ed reference style [Re: Last Call: Instructions to Requestfor Comments (RFC) Authors to BCP]
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread