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

Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Thu, 29 October 2020 01:41 UTC

Return-Path: <marka@isc.org>
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 923A03A09F1; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 18:41:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
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 u3CKyjwXNSOh; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 18:41:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [149.20.64.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C583B3A09DE; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 18:41:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (zmx1.isc.org [149.20.0.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A7B2D3AB003; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 01:41:54 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 93AFC160047; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 01:41:54 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CDAB160094; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 01:41:54 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zmx1.isc.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id pCisMr6OJcFM; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 01:41:54 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [172.30.42.67] (unknown [49.2.222.181]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 31EA6160047; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 01:41:53 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.7\))
Subject: Re: Jim: Re: [rfc-i] FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? (was: Re: John/rsoc: Re: Page numbers in RFCs questions / preferences)
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
In-Reply-To: <20201029005519.GT39170@kduck.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2020 12:41:50 +1100
Cc: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, Working Group Chairs <wgchairs@ietf.org>, IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>, RFC Interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>, rsoc@iab.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A05242FC-C38C-474F-A2AC-412329CA5C52@isc.org>
References: <20201026181442.GA2438@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <CAMm+LwiVmE=qtSPCMD-3foPODL8bgETj3dQDKS-3BOM2021dEg@mail.gmail.com> <CADaq8jdSeTDWy_0fCV25ykxKFMV1ZBtUMMNesoOuaXCzFVfpOA@mail.gmail.com> <D2D0455D-8D6C-4A19-ACAE-4DD972D83DC1@bluepopcorn.net> <20201028164053.GB12700@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <263C265C19B24BA97AF48934@PSB> <225062D7-C061-4543-8665-53A4F4831510@isc.org> <20201029005519.GT39170@kduck.mit.edu>
To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Rn6UYWHOHQy1F_QWIHcBXyc3NsY>
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: Thu, 29 Oct 2020 01:41:58 -0000

I’m actually arguing *for* numbers in the ToC of the PDF version
because I know it gets turned into dead trees.  If that helps those
that want/need to used page number to navigate electronic versions
that is fine.

Page numbers in the HTML version don’t make sense as there is only
one page.  We don’t currently produce a multi-page HTML version and
there is no discussion of what a multi-page version would look like.
Navigation in HTML is intrinsically by following links.

The TXT version needs to go back to the old format for page numbers
to be useful.

At the I-D stage page numbers are useful because people send diffs
and you need to context to get to the right place in the .xml.

Mark

> On 29 Oct 2020, at 11:55, Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> wrote:
> 
> Hi Mark,
> 
> I think we are solidly into "your way is not my way but your way is okay"
> territory here.  Just because you like the clickable-link ToC and it works
> great for you does not meen that everyone else has to prefer it, too.
> If John is happy with "dumb" text, what difference does it make to you?
> 
> -Ben
> 
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 11:30:53AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
>> John, with electronic versions the ToC *works* for PDF and HTML.
>> 
>> For dead trees versions the ToC does not work efficiently regardless
>> of the original form.  Binary searches through a stack of pages is
>> not efficient.  The plain text version also has this issue in the
>> electronic version.
>> 
>> The point of a ToC is to have list of the sections *and* to be able
>> to get to the relevant section easily.  When you can’t click on a link
>> you need page numbers especially as we have unnumbered sections.
>> 
>> One shouldn’t have to memorise the section names *and* order in the ToC
>> to find something in a dead tree version.

-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742              INTERNET: marka@isc.org