IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Thu, 29 October 2020 00:56 UTC

Return-Path: <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 328483A08AE; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 17:56:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.65
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.65 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 BerFJKZIvcG7; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 17:56:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B8983A0A64; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 17:56:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61B5FF4070A; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 17:55:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Delivered-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E7F2F4070A for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 17:55:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Received: from rfc-editor.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rfcpa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id arq-N2SkBIng for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 17:55:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3320DF40709 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 17:55:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kduck.mit.edu ([24.16.140.251]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 09T0tKsU024069 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 28 Oct 2020 20:55:24 -0400
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2020 17:55:19 -0700
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
Message-ID: <20201029005519.GT39170@kduck.mit.edu>
References: <20201026181442.GA2438@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <CAMm+LwiVmE=qtSPCMD-3foPODL8bgETj3dQDKS-3BOM2021dEg@mail.gmail.com> <CADaq8jdSeTDWy_0fCV25ykxKFMV1ZBtUMMNesoOuaXCzFVfpOA@mail.gmail.com> <D2D0455D-8D6C-4A19-ACAE-4DD972D83DC1@bluepopcorn.net> <20201028164053.GB12700@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <263C265C19B24BA97AF48934@PSB> <225062D7-C061-4543-8665-53A4F4831510@isc.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <225062D7-C061-4543-8665-53A4F4831510@isc.org>
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Jim: Re: FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? (was: Re: John/rsoc: Re: Page numbers in RFCs questions / preferences)
X-BeenThere: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions." <rfc-interest.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
Cc: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, Working Group Chairs <wgchairs@ietf.org>, RFC Interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>, rsoc@iab.org, IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email