Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ?
Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Tue, 27 October 2020 06:36 UTC
Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D53863A15C4; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 23:36:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.346
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.346 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.247, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3hZXrGr9DF-W; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 23:36:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg1-x531.google.com (mail-pg1-x531.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::531]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A18513A15C7; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 23:36:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg1-x531.google.com with SMTP id t14so216519pgg.1; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 23:36:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=56Rbty2vSNpy7sD1BuXGTkJ5yr2Rr1z5yBPz81qFVnE=; b=NqJbiXK+VP5UAh9QuCXW8RLzEDZRzWd+YKz9PeDXfaAEEoCRlmQxVku0rpA1nAKXpx fJYNcH9TbbzZUK1nqruFGYmXMzqDyTvv/m1O9RnRBXcRxsyDQC0kb4hT/mDa876UVqUu TT8a3KUh+lVh2k5rJ5AcH0AJCHRMgAjWUQYVpCY+IiWC0KrpcgM+kNyDLAWAkfwy1kzA ClH052OBDe4WSd7IqSzN9yRdkZjNDSTbq+2Q/Jfn2zpj0wHRwI1JGkTfW9tTI33Skefu 2NE77Fsiz0oy53xWB/lr9C0qPSnTAsrAZDClb7ib+8AW+vwMu09QTx+jVlaMXXOSJyrg E2zw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=56Rbty2vSNpy7sD1BuXGTkJ5yr2Rr1z5yBPz81qFVnE=; b=VltxZuwwoJsPIK46uzEr04A2H/4WyWrAK29k67g3LCQFGMuQSogQFbJvFO9D51OoNc xKQAZHiU7fV+6QE2Pg4D0o7pnlClo3kzs5rET7sHgnAPNDpONfQQCB65+oCtwgl8j60M eKwm2rDljkFKs08oe4sDOsXZrnWINiBp6iRQ/GL5FdkCObwk3dJUPjpM9duD0NkxP0w9 FyOVZ7eqMl9QRRJM0wuDbYRCU0pqdLF8CxFIeUwklKeh0jtO/8SxcZ13QFC+D3zfajjq gZ8Kq4oyRvO4GcY0qm7hQPxkE1V8xfM8n7Dl+6wwFORx4Tdt4obFzjZmfZMM1CFe9PCN T6Ig==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530VgUcp5UxwnfFHStEomsYAWsmLkKoXzVTRsm+a0IX/1qbvauGD 1M3zpxjR1WBG2Jp/L+xyIv4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzHpEO8tIekBckFZNzavTnMgTTDTLKgUsY4IPM3/iQKu4KyJdQTjtBNN9RryMLLWvfPBXGsGw==
X-Received: by 2002:a62:7e03:0:b029:163:c9b7:8fec with SMTP id z3-20020a627e030000b0290163c9b78fecmr1028133pfc.30.1603780560973; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 23:36:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([151.210.130.0]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v186sm875843pfv.135.2020.10.26.23.35.57 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 26 Oct 2020 23:36:00 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ?
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>, ietf@ietf.org
Cc: wgchairs@ietf.org, rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org, rsoc@iab.org, ietf@johnlevine.com
References: <20201026020433.GA19475@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <CADaq8je8gMwAkOndTNJ9ndwzOZb2HQMZrCUJ5wNUjw-6ax9QtA@mail.gmail.c om> <35EFE952-7786-4E24-B228-9BEE51D3C876@tzi.org> <20201026150241.GK48111@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <20201026162814.GP39170@kduck.mit.edu> <20201026164036.GO48111@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <1a56dc3b-56ef-3ffb-a12b-44d5e0d0f835@levkowetz.com> <20201026171931.GP48111@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <b733240-fc78-5a71-8920-ff84fbf64287@iecc.com> <20201026180105.GQ48111@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <03976f9f-7f49-7bf7-ce29-ee989232a44d@gmail.com> <7879175D0ABBB5401B02FEA6@PSB> <25dcbfb7-3448-8372-36eb-dc323acc7fd8@gmail.com> <2398D9E18A0B034FBB5FE130@PSB>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <782316c7-3624-1239-4708-bdf31bcd9dd8@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2020 19:35:54 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <2398D9E18A0B034FBB5FE130@PSB>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/3LJCVheaE0y3bz_FFk_xAn8RWPQ>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2020 06:36:03 -0000
Hi John, On 27-Oct-20 13:49, John C Klensin wrote: > > > --On Tuesday, October 27, 2020 12:51 +1300 Brian E Carpenter > <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Let me retract "useless". What really bothers me is that page >> numbers are actively misleading in the new format. I think >> that became true the moment a consensus appeared that the >> preferred presentation format was HTML with flowed text. > > Brian, > > Assume, temporarily and for purposes of discussion, that we > agree about that "actively misleading" part. Then either: > > * We should remove the page numbers from the PDF file (if they > are "actively misleading" in the text, then they are at least as > actively misleading in the PDF and put the pagination plus > headers and footers back into the text form. > > or > > * We should remove the page numbers and headers and footers from > the PDF and than paginate the text form. > > Otherwise, I find it very difficult to argue that there is any > sort of principle here other than "punish those who insist on > being dependent on the text form" and maybe even "punish them > sufficiently that they repent of their sins and switch over to > HTML". > > FWIW, I assume that everyone who prefers the paginated text form > has their own set of priorities. For me, it would be > pagination; headers and footers with title, author, and date; > and only then page numbering And if you were to seek out my comments in June 2014, you'd see that my view was that all I really wanted was pagination using Form Feed characters. Where it got tricky, IMHO, is when PDF was added in as a supported presentation format, because PDF is intrinsically paginated (OK, somebody may tell me that isn't strictly true, but it seems to be true in practice). So whether the page numbers are printed or not, they are *there* in PDF. > (which I tend to use only for > document lengths and the occasional indexed document). So, if > the goal was to suppress page numbers in the text form as > useless or worse, from my personal standpoint the baby went out > with the bathwater. > > Apologies, but because of how those long-ago discussions were > handled -- and then claimed to represent community consensus -- > I've got a really bad attitude on this issue. If running code shows that there are problems with the current format as defined in RFC7994, then we should certainly revisit the claimed consensus. Unlike the canonical XML of an RFC, the presentation format isn't frozen, afaik. Regards Brian
- Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? (w… Toerless Eckert
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) … Robert Sparks
- Re: [irsg] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty p… Stephen Farrell
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? Alessandro Vesely
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? Toerless Eckert
- Re: [irsg] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty p… Toerless Eckert
- Re: Not a Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty pl… John Levine
- Re: Not a Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty pl… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [irsg] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty p… Stephen Farrell
- Re: Not a Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty pl… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [irsg] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty p… Toerless Eckert
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? John Scudder
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? Carsten Bormann
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Not a Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty pl… Andrew G. Malis
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? Flemming Andreasen
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? Andrew G. Malis
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? John C Klensin
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? Matty K
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? Toerless Eckert
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? David Noveck
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? John C Klensin
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? Toerless Eckert
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Ronald Tse
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? John C Klensin
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Toerless Eckert
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … John C Klensin
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Ronald Tse
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Ronald Tse
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … John C Klensin
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Ronald Tse
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Larry Masinter
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Randy Bush
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Ted Lemon
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? Keith Moore
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … John Scudder
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Ted Lemon
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … John Scudder
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Ted Lemon
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? Keith Moore
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? Andrew G. Malis
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: RFC mutation, with or without page numbers John Levine
- RE: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? Andrew Campling
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? Mark Andrews
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Michael StJohns
- Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty … Toerless Eckert
- Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? Matthew Kerwin