Re: [rfc-i] Really not a poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ?

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

If the functionality you are referring to here is putting section and paragraph numbers in the header, I don’t think there’s any reason not to do it since these are the internal pointers that had consensus. 

If the functionality you are referring to is page numbers, we already discussed why that is not in the IETF-provided tool. 

> On Oct 28, 2020, at 07:18, Henrik Levkowetz <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2020-10-28 00:33, John R. Levine wrote:
>>> As a reminder for those who have lost track, this thread was kicked off 
>>> by Toerless saying he would like to be able to render his own copies to 
>>> include a useful table of contents, for his own use, at home, probably 
>>> with the blinds drawn to keep the world from witnessing his shame.
>> 
>> I remember back when the IETF was full of engineers who looked at a 
>> problem and wrote software to solve it.
>> 
>> It took about an hour to write this:
>> 
>>    https://github.com/jrlevine/pagerfc
>> 
>> It takes an unpaginated text RFC, adds page breaks, headers, and footers, 
>> splices the page numbers into the TOC, and since someone said it would be 
>> useful, puts the current section header into each page footer.  Sheesh.
> 
> Umm.  So why is it OK to provide this functionality as a script, but not OK
> to make xml2rfc able to do it?  I'm not talking about the RFC Editor publishing
> paginated text, I'm talking about permitting xml2rfc to do what you've just
> provided a tool to do.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
>    Henrik
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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