Re: FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? (was: Re: John/rsoc: Re: Page numbers in RFCs questions / preferences)
"Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com> Wed, 28 October 2020 04:49 UTC
Return-Path: <agmalis@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 664EA3A0E6B; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 21:49:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 YfLcB2pIGS7o; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 21:49:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk1-x72c.google.com (mail-qk1-x72c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72c]) (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 9B8563A0E67; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 21:49:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk1-x72c.google.com with SMTP id z6so3504157qkz.4; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 21:49:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=+OGgwkoSEFJJUkfi/RBXltptsdp3T1LkkAneZ7oswaA=; b=U1GOkl0eMYU82iI04owjHTslTWwyMEExybusZHH9zR1REGTjUCnHjLt9O3uKKNS9zG xhp1MVhJ0mZa/MhDjbbRP9XCUsezmpjJ+NoaR7D0iqT5Wfj535TH8pE9YopL73AUDw2k /nEFpYxXWc1T7D46lLpiq02SlAQotgjRGAj2cGdu5YkCyodrCaFrPakcWjkxBhOVRTLN 9+tPfC02Fxs/kHpXWIxQ9hxfx9tipPgvcRiEM/gIcr6f2J+gPpCLLiy9QmhW8mgKUaT4 6Y2A8RiRIFC3Jex/3sQRokpabbDrtjunQ6+1oKMsoe2QqH0MgVK6tqeLxdBw4YheLCWW n/YQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=+OGgwkoSEFJJUkfi/RBXltptsdp3T1LkkAneZ7oswaA=; b=YTXX6R0NqdnlyuzYQRNF5xn1I24UBm/Qn95JUt1sXrXu8Sq/BzxXq4itsTNL0fWe97 W1SM659N8eioADAwlVogcN6Lv6wIzVGwbNXgg5fh9DyX8fsH9+YXoh7mqFNpp3V+TOPl hicHYT3RarIhBJj/PYxwEFbikzWqrEqM3kvCYWFoSV9B9xjvRtYmZ2+ogrC16PaajhaQ KFr1uh3JA8aNAdjkr/Zx8EzeFE+Ztg8qVnx8o6iFY1uqb7SO4lDTOQDDzmZYehOQfRiC P5O2iF53vjc9CqboRxnfguM5m0CV2lia9dOVLjwIEIVx/9CwJJaIsRPmi/FDmo7w81s7 0EvA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530MUQbI4Oxe1izMQxiCYg3/CRV1zvBeInHrIRt7WV2648NDAFtz QUeg50V7Ayb+Ned9pF27cJ3RsSJ4jvPxY+wwD3ywxrRHrI4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw6OjOj5lVqGn2ZNUUhFfFyqXVqoE97AwuCXKkziuBEm3hDfZs9qOuC8LPHW6tQWokFH0/WVBEeeyQkWSgpxS4=
X-Received: by 2002:a37:ad05:: with SMTP id f5mr5691210qkm.476.1603860579619; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 21:49:39 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
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>
In-Reply-To: <D2D0455D-8D6C-4A19-ACAE-4DD972D83DC1@bluepopcorn.net>
From: "Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2020 00:49:28 -0400
Message-ID: <CAA=duU3O2cv0Sa_5uj__7UfQAtD0wO+Am1KJsuy4z0vWtcD=Zg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? (was: Re: John/rsoc: Re: Page numbers in RFCs questions / preferences)
To: Jim Fenton <fenton@bluepopcorn.net>
Cc: David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com>, Working Group Chairs <wgchairs@ietf.org>, Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>, John Levine <ietf@johnlevine.com>, IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>, RFC Interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>, RSOC <rsoc@iab.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001e15b605b2b3e4c5"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/eUoQ1N06bNgq8LLmDZ5-ORSoAtk>
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: Wed, 28 Oct 2020 04:49:43 -0000
Jim, Open any recent HTML RFC (such as https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8905.html) and take a look at the frame to the right of the text (on a phone browser, the TOC is a button at the top of the screen). Cheers, Andy On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 7:57 PM Jim Fenton <fenton@bluepopcorn.net> wrote: > [Yikes, this discussion is getting crossposted everywhere, it seems. > I’ll keep it brief] > > On 27 Oct 2020, at 16:36, David Noveck wrote: > > > The issue comes up with PDF files. Currently, you get page numbers > > together with a TOC that has no page numbers. I'm OK with a no-TXT > > option > > but I have a problem with a not-usefully-printable option for RFCs. > > When RFC 8689 was about to be published about a year ago, I had a chat > with the staff at the RFC Editor table in Singapore about this. It > seemed a little strange to have a table of contents without page > numbers, but if some people are reading HTML versions, PDF versions, and > TXT versions, the pagination is different anyway (and nonexistent for > HTML) so trying to reference something by page number is problematic. > References should be to section numbers, and if sections are so big that > it’s hard to find some text there, the author should really think > about structuring the document with smaller subsections. > > What does seem strange (and maybe it has changed in the past year) is > that the plain text and PDF versions have tables of contents, and the > html version does not. I would like for the html version to have a table > of contents with links to anchors for each section. > > -Jim > > > On Tue, Oct 27, 2020, 6:51 PM Phillip Hallam-Baker > > <phill@hallambaker.com> > > wrote: > > > >> Whooaah there... > >> > >> What is the status of this poll? I am all for moving from the > >> subjective > >> consensus model in which certain parties get a veto because their > >> opinions > >> are considered weightier than the rest of us. Objective measures of > >> consensus are good. But is this an official poll? What does it mean? > >> > >> But of course, as John K. pointed out, this is not actually an IETF > >> process. Only of course it is in every meaningful sense except > >> insofar as > >> IETF rules of the road apply. > >> > >> > >> Page numbers is not the hill I would choose to die on here. They > >> don't > >> work in HTML and the whole point of this process is that the TXT > >> documents > >> reflect very badly on the IETF as an organization. It spoke of an > >> organization that is stuck in the 1960s ranting on about how vinyl is > >> better than CD. > >> > >> There are serious issues with the new format. Not least the fact that > >> SVG > >> is not actually supported. The supported format is SVG/Tiny which is > >> an > >> obsolete format originally proposed back in the WAP days as a means > >> of > >> crippling the spec to fit the capabilities of the devices back before > >> Steve > >> Jobs showed us an iPhone for the first time. There are no tools that > >> produce SVG/Tiny, not even GOAT - I had to modify the source code to > >> comply. > >> > >> I don't mind retooling to support an improved specification. Having > >> to > >> retool to support an obsolete one is nonsense. > >> > >> > >> Anyway, how about as a compromise, authors can opt to suppress > >> generation > >> of the TXT version so that the page number issue doesn't come up at > >> all? > >
- FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty pleas… Toerless Eckert
- Re: FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty p… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty p… David Noveck
- Re: FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty p… Jim Fenton
- Re: FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty p… Andrew G. Malis
- Re: FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty p… Jim Fenton
- Re: FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty p… David Noveck
- Re: FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty p… Robert Sparks
- Re: [rfc-i] FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (… Carsten Bormann
- Setting Reply-To Robert Sparks
- Re: Setting Reply-To Derek Atkins
- Jim: Re: [rfc-i] FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page numb… Toerless Eckert
- Re: Jim: Re: [rfc-i] FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page … John C Klensin
- Re: Jim: Re: [rfc-i] FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page … Mark Andrews
- Re: Jim: Re: [rfc-i] FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page … Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: Jim: Re: [rfc-i] FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page … Julian Reschke
- Re: Jim: Re: [rfc-i] FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page … Keith Moore
- Re: Jim: Re: [rfc-i] FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page … Julian Reschke
- Re: Jim: Re: [rfc-i] FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page … Warren Kumari
- Re: [rfc-i] Jim: Re: FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Jim: Re: [rfc-i] FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page … Mark Andrews
- Re: [rfc-i] Jim: Re: FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page … Larry Masinter
- Re: Jim: Re: [rfc-i] FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page … Keith Moore
- Re: Jim: Re: [rfc-i] FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page … Julian Reschke
- Re: Jim: Re: [rfc-i] FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page … Keith Moore
- Re: Jim: Re: [rfc-i] FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page … Julian Reschke
- Re: Jim: Re: [rfc-i] FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page … Donald Eastlake
- Re: Jim: Re: [rfc-i] FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page … Christian Huitema
- Re: Jim: Re: [rfc-i] FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page … Mark Andrews
- Re: Jim: Re: [rfc-i] FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page … John C Klensin
- Re: Jim: Re: [rfc-i] FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page … Leonard Giuliano
- Re: [rfc-i] Jim: Re: FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page … Toerless Eckert
- RE: Jim: Re: [rfc-i] FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page … Black, David
- Re: [irsg] Jim: Re: [rfc-i] FIXED: Poll: RFCs wit… Jane Coffin
- you should not feel bad about I-D document format… Keith Moore
- Re: you should not feel bad about I-D document fo… Andrew G. Malis
- Re: [rfc-i] Jim: Re: FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page … John C Klensin
- Re: [rfc-i] Jim: Re: FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page … Larry Masinter
- Re: Authoring tools survey (Was: Jim: Re: [rfc-i]… IETF Executive Director