Re: [Rfc-markdown] RfcMarkup ToC has no links

Henrik Levkowetz <> Mon, 01 June 2020 12:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5CEF3A0FC4; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 05:00:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kH3s0izx3zw6; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 05:00:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E5D83A0FC3; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 05:00:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]:51620 helo=tannat.localdomain) by with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1jfj7E-0001za-Mz; Mon, 01 Jun 2020 05:00:29 -0700
To: Anders Rundgren <>,
References: <> <>
From: Henrik Levkowetz <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2020 14:00:21 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="hFtQ6jdBnMjDXmSVJVOjOgojmHDECv7ob"
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 26 Dec 2011 16:24:06 +0000)
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Rfc-markdown] RfcMarkup ToC has no links
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "rfc-markdown is a discussion list for people writing I-Ds and RFCs in Markdown and the authors of the tools used for that." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2020 12:00:31 -0000

Hi Anders,

On 2020-05-30 04:43, Anders Rundgren wrote:
> sample RFC:
> That the page number links are gone is understandable since there
> (fortunately) is no paging anymore but removing links for headers
> seem illogical in an HTML formatted document.
> I understand that the IETF want to retire the RfcMarkup format but
> since the IETF apparently still publish in this format, shouldn't
> also stay useful?

The rfcmarkup generated documents are generated from the plain text
documents published by the RFC Editor, not directly from XML.  As
such, there are a lot of heuristics involved in recognizing different
parts of the document for what they are.  In particular, the spaced
dots (periods) which are part of the ToC, are used to recognize the
entries as ToC entries, rather than section titles.

So rendering without pages and page numbers has the effect of depriving
the htmlizer of the cues it needs to generate links from the ToC.

> I'm currently in the auth48 state and the on-line xml2rfc tool
> produces ToC links for appendices(!).  Is that a bug or a feature?