IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Mon, 26 October 2020 23:54 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 383A73A10E8; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 16:54:00 -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 o7N3WOCWAXWu; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 16:53:58 -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 D43F63A10E6; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 16:53:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02DCCF40795; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 16:53:48 -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 65B98F40795 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 16:53:46 -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 vjsIu5mNWqjm for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 16:53:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 908DBF40794 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 16:53:38 -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 09QNrfW2028781 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 26 Oct 2020 19:53:47 -0400
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2020 16:53:41 -0700
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Message-ID: <20201026235341.GA39170@kduck.mit.edu>
References: <20201026215117.GY39170@kduck.mit.edu> <20201026222427.8D3B624F19C4@ary.qy>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20201026222427.8D3B624F19C4@ary.qy>
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] [irsg] Resending: 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: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 06:24:27PM -0400, John Levine wrote:
> In article <20201026215117.GY39170@kduck.mit.edu> 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.

-Ben
_______________________________________________
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