Re: [rfc-i] John/rsoc: Re: Page numbers in RFCs questions / preferences

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

https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8798 is a current example. To make the point clear, if I refer to "Table 2 in RFC 8798" that is unambiguous, but if I refer to "the table on page 6 of RFC 8798" that only works if the reader happens to find the PDF version, and it would probably be wrong for a paginated txt version.

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

On 27-Oct-20 08:56, Jay Daley wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 27/10/2020, at 8:51 AM, Toerless Eckert <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 02:09:59PM -0500, Robert Sparks wrote:
>>>> Who could point me to an RFC and a page# in that RFC (;-) that does
>>>> actually include the magical words like "THERE SHALL BE NO RFC
>>>> REPRESENTATION WITH PAGE NUMERS" ? Would really appreciate not having
>>>> to read through the whole list of the RFC.
>>>
>>> 7990 section 7.3
>>>
>>> 7994 section 4.1 (doesn't mention page numbers explicitly, but their absence
>>> is a direct consequence of this section's requirements).
>>
>> Thank, Robert
>>
>> Section 4. of 7994 mentions a paginated text format (58 lines/page at most).
>> Where are those text files ?
> 
> On the canonical site.  e.g. https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7994
> 
> Jay
> 
>>
>> Cheers
>>    Toerless
>>
>>>>  then we're probably out of luck anyhow. If
>>>> this could be driven by the community, i wonder what WG it would need to
>>>> go to to have ough consensus applied to it.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>>     Toerless
>>>>
>>>>>>   If we're going to add every tweak that one person wants, it's going to
>>>>>> get awfully expensive.
>>>>> That's a terrible generalization to bring to the question I was pointing at.
>>>>> _This_ tweak is extremely cheap - the code already has to produce these
>>>>> numbers for internet-drafts, so the cost is a flag.
>>>>>
>>>>> The cost of a well-known published set of documents that look like RFCs but
>>>>> have had some changes made is different and should be addressed separately.
>>>>> (I'll point here to the inline errata for pre-v3 format rfcs.)
>>>>>
>>>>>>> The RFC editor does not publish an epub format, for example. If
>>>>>>> someone were to contribute an epub formatter that was reasonable to
>>>>>>> merge and maintain, we should merge that. Allowing the tools to
>>>>>>> produce page numbers for local use falls pretty close to that
>>>>>>> doesn't it?
>>>>>> No, it's something the IETF explicitly considered and rejected when it
>>>>>> designed the new format.
>>>>> Which "it"? If you meant epub, RFC7990 says
>>>>>
>>>>>> 7.4.  Potential Future Publication Formats
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 7.4.1.  EPUB
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     This format is intended for use by ebook readers and will be
>>>>>>     available for RFCs after the requirements have been defined.  No
>>>>>>     document on this topic is currently available.
>>>>> That certainly isn't rejection - certainly not of creating epub, and not
>>>>> even of publishing things in epub in the long run. We had to choose what was
>>>>> feasible with the initial tooling effort, and epub didn't make _that_ cut.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> John Levine, [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for
>>>>>> Dummies",
>>>>>> Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
>>
>> -- 
>> ---
>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> 
> -- 
> Jay Daley
> IETF Executive Director
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
> 

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