Re: [rfc-i] [Rsoc] RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ?

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

On 01-Nov-20 15:02, John R. Levine wrote:
>>> I think you may be confusing fragment identifiers in URLs with textual
>>> comments.  My point was that if you want a mechanical reference to a
>>> section in an RFC, the RFCs we publish now have them.
>>
>> Indeed. I was trying to underline that section titles are just about the only format-independent reference target that we have.
> 
> What formats do you believe don't have section numbers?  They're in all 
> three rendered formats and in the XML as tags like "section-3.1".

They aren't in raw XML and they aren't in kramdown, so they aren't where
an author needs them when processing comments on an I-D. (So, strictly,
that isn't an RFC format issue, but it is an issue created by our format
choices and it's quite an annoyance.)

Interestingly enough, I see that we used to have explicit section numbers
in nroff, like
   .XX"1.1. Usage Scenarios"
but the author had to do the numbering manually.

> 
> If you mean I-D's, you're right, the section number tags aren't added 
> until late in the RFC process by the preptool.

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