Explicit refs and refs unification #22
Conversation
domel
added
the
spec:editorial
|
With this change, many references show up twice. Are we sure we want this? 
|
|
@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.
This seems to duplicate the next paragraph
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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.
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