IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Mon, 26 October 2020 12:55 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 D6E1A3A0AF7; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 05:55:50 -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 p1eTBVVfKLSE; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 05:55:49 -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 7BF7E3A0AEA; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 05:55:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E251F40721; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 05:55:39 -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 9EF2DF40721 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 05:55:37 -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 Nd4Sh3P4YgTn for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 05:55:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 595E1F4071F for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 05:55:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.217.118] (p548dcc60.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.141.204.96]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4CKZZN4W7KzybZ; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 13:55:40 +0100 (CET)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <CADaq8je8gMwAkOndTNJ9ndwzOZb2HQMZrCUJ5wNUjw-6ax9QtA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2020 13:55:40 +0100
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 625409740.232668-881a8d40b0a9addd462ddfb3e0a615b1
Message-Id: <35EFE952-7786-4E24-B228-9BEE51D3C876@tzi.org>
References: <20201026020433.GA19475@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <CADaq8je8gMwAkOndTNJ9ndwzOZb2HQMZrCUJ5wNUjw-6ax9QtA@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
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: WG Chairs <wgchairs@ietf.org>, RFC Interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>, Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

On 2020-10-26, at 11:51, David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I think it happened with the conversion to v3 xml.  At that time, the 72-character-ragged-right .txt format ceased to be considered canonical (long overdue in my opinion).  As a result, in accord with some RFC that I was pointed to, a decision was made (by whom it wasn't clear) to make all TOCs the same, so that the pdf and text TOCs lost theirs since there was no way to add them to html which doesn't have them.  The logic is impeccable if you grant the premises and nobody ever considered rethinking the premises when it resulted in nearly useless printed documents. Sigh!

Obviously, with canonical XML, there is no good solution to this problem: Different renditions will have different concepts of pages, so the TOC’s won’t align.

(That is not a good argument for then finally choosing what is probably the worst possible solution to this problem.  I think what happened is that nobody thought about PDF where we continue to have pages, so there never really was a problem specific to retaining pages and thus page numbers in the TXT.)

Grüße, Carsten

_______________________________________________
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