IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org> Tue, 27 October 2020 16:19 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 6D7163A1144; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 09:19:25 -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 14KGTTbUIj34; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 09:19:23 -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 F02F43A1125; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 09:19:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D52BF4072C; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 09:18:51 -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 E6CB7F40775 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 14:33:00 -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 wJoAZ8DPY9Ek for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 14:32:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slice.pfrc.org (slice.pfrc.org [67.207.130.108]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 663D4F40772 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 14:32:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by slice.pfrc.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 924CC1E351; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 17:48:15 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2020 17:48:15 -0400
From: Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@pfrc.org>
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20201026214815.GE23518@pfrc.org>
References: <20201026020433.GA19475@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <CADaq8je8gMwAkOndTNJ9ndwzOZb2HQMZrCUJ5wNUjw-6ax9QtA@mail.gmail.com> <35EFE952-7786-4E24-B228-9BEE51D3C876@tzi.org> <CADaq8je85zUHcCOMW6wCy+fiYUPfVE-1sjy3_Xhsxg85ACOkpQ@mail.gmail.com> <A062DE7F-4D21-4731-B59C-89232EACAF5C@tzi.org> <CAHw9_iJQ93M=Mkxd5H0QxgRUcwCTwVmkwFXjgBrKTnpcksx08g@mail.gmail.com> <66D76329-D7FB-4F44-897D-73E7E8B43771@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <66D76329-D7FB-4F44-897D-73E7E8B43771@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 27 Oct 2020 09:18:50 -0700
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>, Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>, Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>, RFC Interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 06:36:19PM +0000, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
> I wasn't involved in the RFC format discussion either but can't see how
> removing the pagination could have been seen as an advantage.
> Additionally, it is annoying that the htmlized version don't provide links
> to sections/sub-sections from TOC. 

I understand why the page numbers were removed.  I think you're getting to
the more core issue: There is a need to provide a way to refer to portions
of documents easily.

For individual sections, the TOC absolutely should provide linkage to
sections, especially in formats like HTML.

The input XML already provides blocks.  It should be fairly reasonable for
the tool to provide you something like "this is section X.Y, ¶5".

How such a thing would eventually manifest in our old school email
discussions is likely to be the ugly discussion.

-- Jeff
_______________________________________________
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