Re: Jim: Re: [rfc-i] FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? (was: Re: John/rsoc: Re: Page numbers in RFCs questions / preferences)

[Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]>]

I endorse Warren's comments. I use the text versions heavily and I believe
that one of the formats available should preserve the traditional RFC
format.

-- All formats should have a Tables of Content. (Well, I guess I would
agree that if an RFC had less than two sections, it wouldn't need a ToC,
but I don't see how that is possible with the current requirements.)

-- If a format is paginated, it should have page numbers. (A warning could
be added something like "Warning: The page numbers in this document depend
on its presentation format and will differ in other renditions.")

-- If a format has a ToC and pages numbers, those page numbers should
appear in the ToC and just before the ToC would be a good place for the
warning suggested above.

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   [phone] (cell)
 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
 [e-mail]


On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 4:02 PM Warren Kumari <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 3:20 PM John C Klensin <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> [ Massive SNIP ]
>
> >
> >  (a) They are traditional in the RFC Series and
> >         preserving that rendering in a format consistent with a
> >         significant fraction of the first 7000 or so of RFCs
> >         would seem to have some advantages.  Of course, no one
> >         is forced to use them, any more than anyone has been
> >         forced to use the standard text form since HTML and PDF
> >         forms became generally available years ago.
> >
> >  (b) Of the fraction of the community that still prefers
> >         to use the plain text form (at least sometimes) and for
> >         one purpose or another, some fraction of them prefer to
> >         have the headers and footers and many of those prefer,
> >         or are not disturbed by, the page numbers.  Because many
> >         of the arguments against page numbers seem to be coming
> >         from people who do not find the plain text form useful,
> >         probably we should pay attention to that preference ...
> >         or start making the case for getting rid of the plain
> >         text form entirely, perhaps because those who prefer it
> >         (for any purpose) need to be persuaded to join the
> >         modern era and get with the programs.
> >
>
> I realize you aren't actually pushing this point, but this seemed like
> the clearest expression of one of my concerns with this entire thread,
> and so I'm choosing to hook onto it...
>
> Full disclosure:
> I'm one of the people who both believes that there is value in the
> "traditional" aspect of the series, and the fact that RFC17 looks the
> same as RFC42, which looks the same as RFC4217, which looks the same
> as RFC8217 is a good thing.
> I also like and use the text formats - I sometimes print out RFCS, I
> have tooling which greps through documents for things, I generate
> statistics, etc. It's a personal preference.
>
> I've gotten 2 distinctly negative impressions from this thread:
> 1: "You need to join the modern era and get with the program" sums it
> up well. HTML / flowed output is the new world, liking the text format
> is bad and you should feel bad[0].
>
> 2: There were extensive discussions around the new format, and the
> lack of page numbers was mentioned. You were not paying attention when
> this happened. Not only do you lose any right to discuss this, but you
> were lazy and should feel bad.
>
> I'll happily admit that I didn't follow the new format discussions
> closely, and that I do read a lot of things (including books) in
> formats which don't have clear "pages", but the thing that is worrying
> me is the underlying "and you should feel bad" tone in much of this
> discussion.
>
> Perhaps I'm being overly sensitive (or that I just miss seeing IETFers
> in person), but it feels to me like the "and you should feel bad"
> subtext seems to be cropping up more and more. We used to generally
> assume that someone who had a bad or silly idea just had a bad or
> silly *idea* - but it now we often seem to be implying that the person
> is bad or silly.
>
> Other than being able to meet in person again, I'm not sure how we get
> back to where our base assumptions are that other IETFers are friends,
> and are also trying to do the right thing...
>
> W
> [0]: Meme reminder: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jG2KMkQLZmI
>
>
> > Probably I'm missing something important but, if the above
> > analysis is even nearly correct, I don't understand why we are
> > still having this conversation.
> >
> >     john
> >
>
>
> --
> I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
> idea in the first place.
> This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
> regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
> of pants.
>    ---maf
>
>