Re: [Tools-discuss] Interest in title-less sub-sub-sections?

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Tue, 13 April 2021 06:50 UTC

Return-Path: <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 178B23A0CC0 for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 23:50:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=gmx.net
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 6m75w7Rg13Td for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 23:50:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1F7B53A0CBE for <tools-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 23:50:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1618296601; bh=ToqqkhkmKiOygCySDHe9p71g9tC1fyysNwmLHNdmCcw=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=eHW2YGoK3gh6bOulwa+C8kAQuHvFkmfLgY9/yBH1fkgNXTPInBawJIELuScuA2LaW 4WxrUawv8D+aRCvFWU+4WAbDeJTBu/MWayKCSvryRtn+YUrKNNPzFoMw2pXiyAXtmf wa8e/7FlN7Ukz9Px86YOAol7NNR137jz/Y6e4ZBE=
X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c
Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([91.61.50.232]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx104 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1McpJq-1m65ed2PD8-00ZwuE for <tools-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Apr 2021 08:50:01 +0200
To: tools-discuss@ietf.org
References: <20210412232901.GB9612@localhost>
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Message-ID: <216f2dce-04ca-69e9-7fcb-a34a95eabd32@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 08:50:00 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20210412232901.GB9612@localhost>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:n713e53wi2bxH86lZikiEkUY9Fk8MYK2cMxqlYrpmLmeEOiaCUu bk7EBV/zakRnwnxtAZEDURJKRQijL1/Hbkag3dnkI0WawbF+dPtqI8Ru07J9KQ9yY5cbpe0 CnW73SCrHanaHanpciXQiC8Xjhb2mcgm17Tw0P+Z/bPECQExpRx9J/oECZyxPu5kMpZoYq9 m0jTvymwIdfcYbiVo72WQ==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:jI/5lK9KQts=:Q3wChiD9/8fNcxZfxBOy9+ /gsbfSfFORRIuFNeHtVqCkSvrrKs6tvdAJuxHOU+acngAMxBhP1rpyZQJmotiAjFj1NvWIQ0H xhuWTEAADTaRKuwbJUNB6KhjVb05M1iDubRoJR1YeAA3o+9TRAO1qVvkUMiTBUtGRmPK5HlGF nKx7ny8BRXG6pn6f6OVpu0L1zWDDdv6pZHRqhYtCfPZRDhDT6aXX5Klwk0GQA7lixzvBRh3pa SwFtycM9wYTtgolhoqjv00ekmhJa3Ocql+UQ4AVtwrBkwsdiZo96qPb13jLv1BM54IODt6vYa Vtj/Cpu/BLWNhIqxQOdXsbErAcxPvZ7kFM9qM6mUMsxadr0LNy0X8NTw2u0RA4KiqkfY1/N1X KTPpw2aP/swq/lzgzAVk1NPfnjWc23394MBRO7ObjZrNovO0V0J5S8QX5WMkxDI2ggApMuZfU U9S8zi1hAUWzcqaUWMKWPQSY+uIvzOq8bwXrxbzLRALGO9XJnpDL8LkDVntdA0lZjlOoO6DVz JodQnpvrv/ArXqz2o0qFDhwQhWSvIa0lo5hP/BN7Gs+KbdfxQH+VyKCgfjKuhtpfha9VkUiak I/bMLPg03tuLKQYpjV0ZyZZIxtR1E8kT6z7fyC+SEb61wv+ArxTreFGRNkVY9sshB37ESHNmj xqcnCam7yGUqQ0ojP6CsAMspxZkLxUJPU+3WB5a1Pow+7IZflce4ysRQqnTUYnYAcNcsfRXfm M9xr7ndnV4D/9tmQi6oVoqVOmbeE2Nk+WLWRg+IF4IaIHmZ7ArifrkzTnomGm2jfLzvNG3jam eUufxcpFSzmS02OlibJCmxuho/YPYr7zS5zyJzpwfWxdChIK4ur2JgRsegsZtcMbx0fFbtg+F fjtwGeIc0UZw1fSL69QIMJ3lsjZRSFeDXgD9mnEtyoKh2xhhIjbKlD9COkKoHdVKpy3SQfRqE Qy0zaI+Iy4pMJfCPl2/5Wei/oc/2wq+4fJck0y9aIswAgTgY/PUj8YplwbA4J+PK6BpljU/id gJ3rt42q5h97nfbAEQNJzoPkQcF5lsoVkpdGu0xhSSmKIFASCY9O0vd62uqRCT1pH65eUIhKk rP5ZCOfMkCS9sOEhiIBbg0iDGOg5L495DGOWJQs/CDG/8RgmgN+4xEhdHmHgaZjvjIgXZdayf p6G7mXDxXNOrG64dReTZyIOMuktWuiBVAqnOecKJr+3DBaUJ31ITk2XFUNWCZxaHROA2xgqLO 4VRts9iY5kSS5X3L2
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-discuss/3ChhEVi_l_60eqzlQHJK-vlyldo>
Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Interest in title-less sub-sub-sections?
X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion <tools-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tools-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:tools-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 06:50:09 -0000

Am 13.04.2021 um 01:29 schrieb Nico Williams:
> Consider the x.680 and x.690 series documents.  They typically have many
> tiny sub-sub-sections, with many sub-sub-sections having just one or two
> paragraphs and no title.
>
> Presumably those tiny sub-sub-sections lack a title because a title
> would make the documents less readable.  For tiny sub-sub-sections, the
> lack of a title almost makes the sub-sub-section number akin to a
> paragraph number.
>
> E.g., x.690, where sections 8, 8.1, 8.1.1, ..., 8.19 have titles, but
> 8.1.1.1, ..., 8.19.1, 8.19.2, ..., do not:
>
>     8 Basic encoding rules
>
>     8.1 General rules for encoding
>
>     8.1.1 Structure of an encoding
>
>     8.1.1.1 The encoding of a data value shall consist of four components
>     which shall appear in the following order:
>
>     ...
>
>     8.19 Encoding of an object identifier value
>
>     8.19.1 The encoding of an object identifier value shall be primitive.
>
>     8.19.2 The contents octets shall be an (ordered) list of encodings of
>     subidentifiers (see 8.19.3 and 8.19.4) concatenated together.
>
>     Each subidentifier is represented as a series of (one or more)
>     octets. ...
>
>     8.19.3 The number of subidentifiers ...
>
> What's really nice about this is how easy it makes it to make very
> specific references.  Also, because most sub-sub-sections are so short,
> it is easy to refer to most every normative requirement/recommendation/
> option.

As I just sid in the other thread: we already number paragraphs; we just
do not display these numbers.

In the example above, "8.1.1.1" would get an anchor like
"section-8.1.1-1". That's totally fine for references, the anchor is
easily discoverable from the HTML format.

> Would we need any changes to the xml2rfc schema or tooling to make this
> style possible for Internet-Drafts and RFCs?

It would need to start with a change in the Style Guide. I would prefer
to use what we already have (and maybe tune *that* instead).

Best regards, Julian