Re: [rfc-i] FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? (was: Re: John/rsoc: Re: Page numbers in RFCs questions / preferences)
Jim Fenton <fenton@bluepopcorn.net> Wed, 28 October 2020 16:15 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 D7FE13A07D3; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 09:15:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.65
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.65 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_ALL=0.8, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=bluepopcorn.net
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 pUxG6tAZoLYN; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 09:15:36 -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 654B03A07C4; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 09:15:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A3C3F4074D; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 09:15:13 -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 8689CF4070C for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 22:47:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Authentication-Results: rfcpa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=bluepopcorn.net
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 Jh7wGkC1nms9 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 22:47:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from v2.bluepopcorn.net (v2.bluepopcorn.net [IPv6:2607:f2f8:a994::2]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 183E4F40706 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 22:47:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bluepopcorn.net; s=supersize; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type: MIME-Version:References:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:Date:Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender :Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help: List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=SEyD6Y1qAGbwh9ni4eAe4oDtkQnjl2RBoAKHwOmA3/Y=; b=Y0QybQJ4coTEHUK0s7/K6YXkUl pPhbrbx6xgwXum7Qbm6BnZtM0OmNEN7SuX0bljqin40vwegzzjSZC05iMB63Y7V4ploEeK064TIlY 4X5X8nfRCdqPwE8G+FRv9NSjKF6bk+f1L/u82zCYqbod3J+aGFb1EqpX7Fu1e1RPTL6A=;
Received: from [2601:647:4400:1261:ac45:fb1a:7502:2d] (helo=[10.10.20.144]) by v2.bluepopcorn.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <fenton@bluepopcorn.net>) id 1kXeJ9-0003lC-HC; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 22:47:41 -0700
From: Jim Fenton <fenton@bluepopcorn.net>
To: "Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2020 22:47:38 -0700
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.13.2r5673)
Message-ID: <81159B24-163A-46F5-811F-D4D6F5F392BE@bluepopcorn.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAA=duU3O2cv0Sa_5uj__7UfQAtD0wO+Am1KJsuy4z0vWtcD=Zg@mail.gmail.com>
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> <CAA=duU3O2cv0Sa_5uj__7UfQAtD0wO+Am1KJsuy4z0vWtcD=Zg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 28 Oct 2020 09:15:12 -0700
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] 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: Working Group Chairs <wgchairs@ietf.org>, Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>, John Levine <ietf@johnlevine.com>, IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>, RFC Interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>, RSOC <rsoc@iab.org>, David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>
On 27 Oct 2020, at 21:49, Andrew G. Malis wrote: > Jim, > > Open any recent HTML RFC (such as > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8905.html) and take a look at the > frame > to the right of the text (on a phone browser, the TOC is a button at > the > top of the screen). Thanks, John and Andy, for pointing that out. That’s what I get for (1) using a narrow browser window and (2) looking for the TOC in exactly the same place, so I didn’t see the Table of Contents thing in the upper right corner. -Jim > > Cheers, > Andy > > > On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 7:57 PM Jim Fenton <fenton@bluepopcorn.net> > wrote: > >> [Yikes, this discussion is getting crossposted everywhere, it seems. >> I’ll keep it brief] >> >> On 27 Oct 2020, at 16:36, David Noveck wrote: >> >>> The issue comes up with PDF files. Currently, you get page numbers >>> together with a TOC that has no page numbers. I'm OK with a no-TXT >>> option >>> but I have a problem with a not-usefully-printable option for RFCs. >> >> When RFC 8689 was about to be published about a year ago, I had a >> chat >> with the staff at the RFC Editor table in Singapore about this. It >> seemed a little strange to have a table of contents without page >> numbers, but if some people are reading HTML versions, PDF versions, >> and >> TXT versions, the pagination is different anyway (and nonexistent for >> HTML) so trying to reference something by page number is problematic. >> References should be to section numbers, and if sections are so big >> that >> it’s hard to find some text there, the author should really think >> about structuring the document with smaller subsections. >> >> What does seem strange (and maybe it has changed in the past year) is >> that the plain text and PDF versions have tables of contents, and the >> html version does not. I would like for the html version to have a >> table >> of contents with links to anchors for each section. >> >> -Jim >> >>> On Tue, Oct 27, 2020, 6:51 PM Phillip Hallam-Baker >>> <phill@hallambaker.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Whooaah there... >>>> >>>> What is the status of this poll? I am all for moving from the >>>> subjective >>>> consensus model in which certain parties get a veto because their >>>> opinions >>>> are considered weightier than the rest of us. Objective measures of >>>> consensus are good. But is this an official poll? What does it >>>> mean? >>>> >>>> But of course, as John K. pointed out, this is not actually an IETF >>>> process. Only of course it is in every meaningful sense except >>>> insofar as >>>> IETF rules of the road apply. >>>> >>>> >>>> Page numbers is not the hill I would choose to die on here. They >>>> don't >>>> work in HTML and the whole point of this process is that the TXT >>>> documents >>>> reflect very badly on the IETF as an organization. It spoke of an >>>> organization that is stuck in the 1960s ranting on about how vinyl >>>> is >>>> better than CD. >>>> >>>> There are serious issues with the new format. Not least the fact >>>> that >>>> SVG >>>> is not actually supported. The supported format is SVG/Tiny which >>>> is >>>> an >>>> obsolete format originally proposed back in the WAP days as a means >>>> of >>>> crippling the spec to fit the capabilities of the devices back >>>> before >>>> Steve >>>> Jobs showed us an iPhone for the first time. There are no tools >>>> that >>>> produce SVG/Tiny, not even GOAT - I had to modify the source code >>>> to >>>> comply. >>>> >>>> I don't mind retooling to support an improved specification. Having >>>> to >>>> retool to support an obsolete one is nonsense. >>>> >>>> >>>> Anyway, how about as a compromise, authors can opt to suppress >>>> generation >>>> of the TXT version so that the page number issue doesn't come up at >>>> all? >> >> _______________________________________________ rfc-interest mailing list rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
- Re: [rfc-i] Jim: Re: FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [rfc-i] FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (… David Noveck
- Re: [rfc-i] Nothing like a Poll: RFCs with page n… John R. Levine
- Re: [rfc-i] FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (… Andrew G. Malis
- Re: [rfc-i] Nothing like a Poll: RFCs with page n… Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [rfc-i] FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (… David Noveck
- Re: [rfc-i] FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (… Robert Sparks
- Re: [rfc-i] FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (… Carsten Bormann
- [rfc-i] Setting Reply-To Robert Sparks
- Re: [rfc-i] FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (… Jim Fenton
- Re: [rfc-i] FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (… Jim Fenton
- Re: [rfc-i] Setting Reply-To Derek Atkins
- Re: [rfc-i] Jim: Re: FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page … John C Klensin
- Re: [rfc-i] Jim: Re: FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page … Warren Kumari
- Re: [rfc-i] Jim: Re: FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page … Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [rfc-i] Jim: Re: FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page … Mark Andrews
- Re: [rfc-i] Jim: Re: FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page … Mark Andrews
- Re: [rfc-i] Jim: Re: FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page … Christian Huitema
- Re: [rfc-i] [irsg] Jim: Re: FIXED: Poll: RFCs wit… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [rfc-i] Jim: Re: FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page … Leonard Giuliano
- Re: [rfc-i] Jim: Re: FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page … Black, David
- Re: [rfc-i] [irsg] Jim: Re: FIXED: Poll: RFCs wit… Jane Coffin
- Re: [rfc-i] Jim: Re: FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page … John C Klensin
- Re: [rfc-i] [Rsoc] RFCs with page numbers (pretty… John R. Levine
- Re: [rfc-i] [Rsoc] RFCs with page numbers (pretty… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [rfc-i] [Rsoc] RFCs with page numbers (pretty… John R. Levine
- Re: [rfc-i] [Rsoc] RFCs with page numbers (pretty… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [rfc-i] [Rsoc] RFCs with page numbers (pretty… John R. Levine
- Re: [rfc-i] [Rsoc] RFCs with page numbers (pretty… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [rfc-i] [Rsoc] RFCs with page numbers (pretty… John R. Levine
- Re: [rfc-i] [Rsoc] RFCs with page numbers (pretty… tom petch
- Re: [rfc-i] [Rsoc] RFCs with page numbers (pretty… Julian Reschke
- Re: [rfc-i] [Rsoc] RFCs with page numbers (pretty… tom petch
- Re: [rfc-i] [Rsoc] RFCs with page numbers (pretty… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [rfc-i] [Rsoc] RFCs with page numbers (pretty… Julian Reschke
- Re: [rfc-i] [Rsoc] RFCs with page numbers (pretty… Robert Sparks
- Re: [rfc-i] [Rsoc] RFCs with page numbers (pretty… John R. Levine
- Re: [rfc-i] [Rsoc] RFCs with page numbers (pretty… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [rfc-i] [Rsoc] RFCs with page numbers (pretty… Julian Reschke
- Re: [rfc-i] [Rsoc] RFCs with page numbers (pretty… Robert Sparks
- Re: [rfc-i] [Rsoc] RFCs with page numbers (pretty… Julian Reschke
- Re: [rfc-i] [Rsoc] RFCs with page numbers (pretty… Robert Sparks
- Re: [rfc-i] [Rsoc] RFCs with page numbers (pretty… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [rfc-i] [Rsoc] RFCs with page numbers (pretty… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [rfc-i] [Rsoc] RFCs with page numbers (pretty… Robert Sparks
- Re: [rfc-i] [Rsoc] RFCs with page numbers (pretty… Julian Reschke
- Re: [rfc-i] [Rsoc] RFCs with page numbers (pretty… tom petch
- Re: [rfc-i] [Rsoc] RFCs with page numbers (pretty… Julian Reschke
- Re: [rfc-i] [Rsoc] RFCs with page numbers (pretty… Michael Richardson
- Re: [rfc-i] [Rsoc] RFCs with page numbers (pretty… Tony Finch
- Re: [rfc-i] [Rsoc] RFCs with page numbers (pretty… Tony Finch
- Re: [rfc-i] [Rsoc] RFCs with page numbers (pretty… John R. Levine
- Re: [rfc-i] [Rsoc] RFCs with page numbers (pretty… Tony Finch