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

If you're concerned about people seeing different pagination depending on
format, you could change the page numbers at the bottom of .txt pages to be

 Author                                  Shortname
                           docname.txt[Page 2]

and the numbers at the bottom of pages in PDF similarly to have
    docname.pdf[Page 2]

where docname is either rfcNNNN or draft-ietf-wgname-NN

it's better if the page identifier at the bottom of the page identifies the
context anyway.
Put it outside the [Page NN] brackets for backward compatibility :)

On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 9:21 AM Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>

-- 
--
https://LarryMasinter.net <http://larry.masinter.net>