Re: [rfc-i] [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFCs questions / preferences

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 28-Oct-20 04:00, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
> On 10/27/20 1:11 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> On 27-Oct-20 12:53, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 06:24:27PM -0400, John Levine wrote:
>>>> In article <[e-mail]> you write:
>>>>>> For individual sections, the TOC absolutely should provide linkage to
>>>>>> sections, especially in formats like HTML.
>>>>>
>>>>> The native HTML format does.  I have no idea why the htmlization script
>>>>> can't or does not do so for new-format RFCs.
>>>>
>>>> There is no htmlization script for new-format RFCs. The HTML format is
>>>> produced directly from the XML and has all the links you'd expect, as
>>>> does the PDF. The text format loses a lot of info visible in the other
>>>> formats so it is a third-best option.
>>>>
>>>> I suppose you could render to text and try to htmlize that but it's
>>>> hard to imagine a reason to do so.
>>>
>>> I don't know what https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8815 is (conveniently
>>> linked from https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8815/ as "htmlized") if not
>>> trying to htmlize the text copy.  I am well aware that the new format
>>> produces direct ("native") HTML output, and indeed was attempting to point
>>> Jeff towards the native HTML output.
>>
>> Right. I think we should debate whether it's a good or a bad idea to run
>> the htmlization script on v3 format documents. I'd say "bad" because all
>> it does is create confusion.
>>
>> Running rfcdiff on the plain text version is very useful, however.
> 
> I prefer to use the htmlized version when reviewing documents, for a 
> variety of reasons:
> 
> - it has all those handly links at the top, notably for the diffs, 
> tracker, etc. So with one click I can bring up the diff showing the most 
> recent changes.

Yes, very useful. Is there any reason that a tool could not prepend
that info to the new-normal HTML version?

> 
> - it has hot links from the TOC to the sections so that is easily navigated

That's built into the new-normal HTML.

> 
> - it is laid out just like the text version. 

But the text version is now not a reference point any more, like it or not.

> I can cut out sections that 
> I want to comment on and paste them into an email while retaining the 
> formatting. 

True. But if your reader is looking at the HTML version, that doesn't really work any more.

(I prefer to use the side by side diffs when reviewing 
> changes, but often then need to consult the full version for more 
> context. Having the full version match what the diff used is important 
> for this.)

True. But this is a property we lose when line-wrapped HTML is the presentation format.

> 
> Hence I would definitely like to have the htmlized format continue to be 
> available for v3 documents. Since it is created from the txt format I 
> don't see why it is harder to produce than for v2 documents.

It isn't. But since the txt version is no longer canonical, e.g. no SVG diagrams, the value is less than it used to be.

> OTOH, I do now prefer the native html version when reading/consulting a 
> document.

Me too. It also prints nicely if you want.

    Brian
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest