IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Tools-discuss] mangled ToC in RFC 8784

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 28 October 2020 23:50 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 C161D3A0975 for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 16:50:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id I7OA9HnTRdph for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 16:50:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3EC123A0969 for <tools-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 16:50:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E754D389D3; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 19:57:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id FqsQr3AHJ8wk; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 19:57:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 856D8389D1; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 19:57:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id C928E4F5; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 19:50:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>, tools-discuss@ietf.org, Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@levkowetz.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.2.23.451.2010281616550.2540588@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.23.451.2010281420240.2537787@bofh.nohats.ca> <438c0bc7-ceed-c77b-4846-75f26e477ae9@levkowetz.com> <6756.1603915195@localhost> <alpine.LRH.2.23.451.2010281616550.2540588@bofh.nohats.ca>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2020 19:50:51 -0400
Message-ID: <29510.1603929051@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-discuss/DNZvwpTh3E2p_AZjl3cY2KUa8AM>
Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] mangled ToC in RFC 8784
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: Wed, 28 Oct 2020 23:50:56 -0000

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> wrote:
    >> >> This RFC seems to have a mangled ToC that cannot be clicked at.

    >> I gotta ask if it's worth fixing?

    > Yes it is. What's the point of a ToC if I can't use it to go to a
    > specific section.

I agree that the TOC is useless in this form.
I'm asking what would make the HTML version more useable to you?
I also find it different and weird, but I'm starting to accept it.

The best part of the tools htmlized version is that it, by default, seems to
fill most of my screen (fit-width), while the various other versions I have
to adjust things, and sometimes it just never looks right.
The DT copy of the htmlization suffers from this in particular.

The HTML output is naturally much more reactive, but I still find that there
is too much wasted white space.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email