-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Explicit refs and refs unification #22
Conversation
@rubensworks the first RFC* is a link to a particular (sub)section, and the second RFC* is a general reference. |
Co-authored-by: Ted Thibodeau Jr <tthibodeau@openlinksw.com>
<dd>An HTTP client (as defined by | ||
<a data-cite="rfc9110#section-3.3">Section 3.3. Connections, Clients, and | ||
Servers</a> of [[[RFC9110]]] [[RFC9110]]) that sends HTTP requests for | ||
SPARQL Protocol operations. (Also known as: <em>client</em>.)</dd> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This seems to duplicate the next paragraph
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes. I had made a suggestion, which was meant to lead to a decision between the paragraph above and the paragraph below, which are better compared in the preview. I prefer the top/first paragraph (which includes the title of the cited section, as well as the title of the RFC, along with the RFC####). If this is accepted/adopted, then I think the other citations should be tweaked in similar fashion.
<dd>An HTTP client (as defined by | ||
<a data-cite="rfc9110#section-3.3">Section 3.3. Connections, Clients, and | ||
Servers</a> of [[[RFC9110]]] [[RFC9110]]) that sends HTTP requests for | ||
SPARQL Protocol operations. (Also known as: <em>client</em>.)</dd> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes. I had made a suggestion, which was meant to lead to a decision between the paragraph above and the paragraph below, which are better compared in the preview. I prefer the top/first paragraph (which includes the title of the cited section, as well as the title of the RFC, along with the RFC####). If this is accepted/adopted, then I think the other citations should be tweaked in similar fashion.
"rfc*" -> "RFC*"
Preview | Diff