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

[Leonard Giuliano <[e-mail]>]

+1 
One of the big things I appreciate about IETF specs is the simplicity and 
ease of consumption from the txt versions.  

On Thu, 29 Oct 2020, Donald Eastlake wrote:

| 
| 
| I endorse Warren's comments. I use the text versions heavily and I believe that one of the formats available should preserve the traditional RFC format.
| -- All formats should have a Tables of Content. (Well, I guess I would agree that if an RFC had less than two sections, it wouldn't need a ToC, but I don't see how that is possible with the current requirements.)
| 
| -- If a format is paginated, it should have page numbers. (A warning could be added something like "Warning: The page numbers in this document depend on its presentation format and will differ in other renditions.")
| 
| -- If a format has a ToC and pages numbers, those page numbers should appear in the ToC and just before the ToC would be a good place for the warning suggested above.
| 
| Thanks,
| Donald
| ===============================
|  Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   [phone] (cell)
|  2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
|  [e-mail]
| 
| 
| On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 4:02 PM Warren Kumari <[e-mail]> wrote:
|       On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 3:20 PM John C Klensin <[e-mail]> wrote:
|       >
|       [ Massive SNIP ]
| 
|       >
|       >  (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.
|       >
| 
|       I realize you aren't actually pushing this point, but this seemed like
|       the clearest expression of one of my concerns with this entire thread,
|       and so I'm choosing to hook onto it...
| 
|       Full disclosure:
|       I'm one of the people who both believes that there is value in the
|       "traditional" aspect of the series, and the fact that RFC17 looks the
|       same as RFC42, which looks the same as RFC4217, which looks the same
|       as RFC8217 is a good thing.
|       I also like and use the text formats - I sometimes print out RFCS, I
|       have tooling which greps through documents for things, I generate
|       statistics, etc. It's a personal preference.
| 
|       I've gotten 2 distinctly negative impressions from this thread:
|       1: "You need to join the modern era and get with the program" sums it
|       up well. HTML / flowed output is the new world, liking the text format
|       is bad and you should feel bad[0].
| 
|       2: There were extensive discussions around the new format, and the
|       lack of page numbers was mentioned. You were not paying attention when
|       this happened. Not only do you lose any right to discuss this, but you
|       were lazy and should feel bad.
| 
|       I'll happily admit that I didn't follow the new format discussions
|       closely, and that I do read a lot of things (including books) in
|       formats which don't have clear "pages", but the thing that is worrying
|       me is the underlying "and you should feel bad" tone in much of this
|       discussion.
| 
|       Perhaps I'm being overly sensitive (or that I just miss seeing IETFers
|       in person), but it feels to me like the "and you should feel bad"
|       subtext seems to be cropping up more and more. We used to generally
|       assume that someone who had a bad or silly idea just had a bad or
|       silly *idea* - but it now we often seem to be implying that the person
|       is bad or silly.
| 
|       Other than being able to meet in person again, I'm not sure how we get
|       back to where our base assumptions are that other IETFers are friends,
|       and are also trying to do the right thing...
| 
|       W
|       [0]: Meme reminder: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jG2KMkQLZmI
| 
| 
|       > 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
|       >
| 
| 
|       --
|       I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
|       idea in the first place.
|       This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
|       regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
|       of pants.
|          ---maf
| 
| 
| 
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest