Re: [rfc-i] [Rsoc] RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ?

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

Am 02.11.2020 um 19:02 schrieb Robert Sparks:
> Re-adding the context you dropped:
> ...

I didn't realize that this was actually the point you were making.

> ... >> For the v3 transition, I'm still more on the fence that it's too soon
>> to break people's toolchains just because we can. At some point, when
>> there's not such a mix of historic text files that have to be
>> processed along with the new things (which may or may not be in v3
>> format while they are internet drafts), then sure - we can say "Get
>> with the times". But I don't think those times are here yet.
> I'm puzzled that you didn't find the exact point of disagreement in
> that, but I'll try to restate it:
>
> Some people have repeatedly held the position it's ok to disrupt
> existing toolchains because what we're creating is so much better and
> breakage will make people use the new thing. Others think that a longer
> period of transition allowing older toolchains to continue working is
> important.

My recollection is that we preserved support for plain text exactly
*because* we did not want to disrupt existing tool chains. And we did
not, right?

What was news to me is that there are documents which have
artwork/sourcecode that spans 50 pages, and thus people would like to
use page numbers. I don't recall that use case being mentioned in
context of the format transition.

IMHO, publishing large blobs of source code as-is is weird. We publish
specs for *readers*, not for automatic processing. Is this specific to
the YANG community, or does it apply to other areas as well?

Best regards, Julian

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