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

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

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.

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