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 00:31 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 65D6C3A03C9; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 17:31:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 ed741a_inPAs; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 17:31:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:0:2::2b]) (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 7C3EB3A03F3; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 17:31:00 -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 3ED4D3AB006; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 00:31:00 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1F2C0160047; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 00:31:00 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09331160094; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 00:31:00 +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 lvTim7ZDKEO3; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 00:30:59 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [172.30.42.67] (unknown [49.2.222.181]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CD8CE160047; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 00:30:57 +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: <263C265C19B24BA97AF48934@PSB>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2020 11:30:53 +1100
Cc: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>, Jim Fenton <fenton@bluepopcorn.net>, 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@iab.org, David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <225062D7-C061-4543-8665-53A4F4831510@isc.org>
References: <20201026181442.GA2438@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <CAMm+LwiVmE=qtSPCMD-3foPODL8bgETj3dQDKS-3BOM2021dEg@mail.gmail.c om> <CADaq8jdSeTDWy_0fCV25ykxKFMV1ZBtUMMNesoOuaXCzFVfpOA@mail.gmail.com> <D2D0455D-8D6C-4A19-ACAE-4DD972D83DC1@bluepopcorn.net> <20201028164053.GB12700@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <263C265C19B24BA97AF48934@PSB>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/m-b91Yl2b7btmzyKX6Y_hg2xVBM>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 29 Oct 2020 08:07:51 -0700
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 00:31:02 -0000
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 > On 29 Oct 2020, at 06:19, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote: > > > > --On Wednesday, October 28, 2020 17:40 +0100 Toerless Eckert > <tte@cs.fau.de> wrote: > >> On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 04:57:38PM -0700, Jim Fenton wrote: >>> 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. >> >> The thread is getting long so it is hard to not miss things >> said earlier, so let me repeat: My proposal was to add on IETF >> pages renderings with page numbers (not to remove any of the >> non-paginated renderings), AND make sure the pagination is >> consistent across them. > > And, also to repeat, the expectation of consistent numbering (or > consistent pagination) across different renderings is > impractical and unwise. As a specific and concrete example, > consider the relationship between a PDF document that contains > representations of several graphic images and the associated > text version. The only way I can think of to make the > pagination (and numbering) consistent between them would be to > leave large areas of white space in the text. That could be > done, but would make the text file longer and less useful. > > AFAICT, the arguments against page numbers in the text files are: > > (1) They are not allowed to be used in crossreferences within > the document, therefore they are utterly useless. > Response: See many comments that contradict "utterly useless" > in this set of threads. And we've had that rule for decades and > the RFC Editor and then the RFC Production Center enforce it. > > (2) They are not allowed to be used in references within the RFC > Series to parts of other RFCs. > Response: We've had that rule for decades and the RFC Editor > and then the RFC Production Center enforce it. > > (3) We don't want them used by third parties or their documents > to references parts of RFCs. > Response: As you point out, many other publications already > prohibit page number references to identify particular material > and do so for much the same reason we have. But, as long as we > paginate documents, nothing we do is going to prevent someone > who insists on page numbers from counting and using them. And, > as long as we have at least one paginated form (numbered or not) > that will be possible. However, page numbers that are > inconsistent among renderings actually reinforces the "don't use > page numbers in references" rule because it is then clear that > they are too unstable to make good references, so maybe we > should be promoting their inclusion. > > (4) Page numbers in plain text documents are so inherently evil > and/or the risk to horrible damage being done by anyone using > them so high that we need to suppress them and headers and > footers (and perhaps even pagination) as well. That evilness > and risk of damage is acceptable in the PDF form, just not in > the plain-text one. > Response: In fairness, no one whose comments I have read has > actually said/ claimed that, but it seems to me that it is were > several arguments against page identification (numbered or not) > seem to be heading. YMMD. > > By contrast, there are, it seems to me only two reasons for > retaining the page numbers (and pagination, headers, and > footers) in the plain text rendering: > > (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. > > 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 > -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
- 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