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

[Robert Sparks <[e-mail]>]

On 10/26/20 12:47 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
>> John - you've answered why RFCs are not published with page numbers 
>> and where/when the community discussion that took place for that 
>> decision.
>>
>> You haven't answered whether/how the RSOC engaged the community on 
>> the question of whether the tools should let someone produce an RFC 
>> locally that has page numbers in it for themselves if they want to. 
>> The reasoning for not letting the tools produce such a thing is 
>> certainly not explicitly captured in the series of RFCs you point to.
>
> I am not Heather and I do not remember all the details, but I cannot 
> imagine why you would want to reopen this can of worms.
>
> People can write whatever they want for their own use, but the tools 
> we are paying for produce the output formats that our consensus 
> documents describe.

mmm. Again, I dont think you're quite seeing this aspect of the question.

I (at least) am not trying to reopen any cans about what gets published.

But when the community asks that the tools produce something different 
for their local use, and it's easy and inexpensive to add and maintain, 
it doesn't seem like it's the right thing to do to deny it by policy.

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?

RjS

>
> Regards,
> John Levine, [e-mail], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for 
> Dummies",
> Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

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