15

The practical upshot is that you don't have to worry about numerical sequencing or having to rearrange things if edits are made at a later date. Definitely useful for tag wiki stuff, or any other giant blob of hyperlinks (i.e. RFCs) that you're throwing together.

This started as a PSA on using RFC numbers/names in hyperlinks, but I'm adjusting the format so that 1) I can accept my own answer, and 2) people can share their own silly citation tricks.

1
  • 1
    Didn't know about this, I always thought only index numbers were allowed. Great to know.
    – Massimo
    Commented Feb 12, 2016 at 21:39

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
10

RFC links

This is pretty obvious when you think about it, but still neat.

Example:

This is a link to [RFC 1796][1796].

So is [this][rfc1796].

[1796]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1796    
[rfc1796]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1796

Result:

This is a link to RFC 1796.

So is this.

2
  • Since I apparently can't edit it... It's also worth pointing out that you can also use the syntax: [RFC 1796][] so long as the later citation is the same string (i.e. [RFC 1796]: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1796).
    – Parthian Shot
    Commented Feb 15, 2016 at 14:48
  • You can even use [RFC 1796] in this case, which is the most readable version anyway (in unformatted markdown sources).
    – Jens Erat
    Commented Feb 17, 2016 at 22:50

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .