Re: [Tools-discuss] pages numbers in ToC in PDF

Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> Thu, 27 May 2021 19:13 UTC

Return-Path: <eckert@i4.informatik.uni-erlangen.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 7ECD13A0874 for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 May 2021 12:13:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.649
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 rBDwIPOJkXgb for <tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 May 2021 12:13:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [131.188.34.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3202B3A0870 for <tools-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 May 2021 12:13:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [131.188.34.51]) by faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0113548004; Thu, 27 May 2021 21:12:55 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix, from userid 10463) id A82904E75BF; Thu, 27 May 2021 21:12:55 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 27 May 2021 21:12:55 +0200
From: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, tools-discuss@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20210527191255.GX3909@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
References: <27379.1622115270@localhost> <B9E7C605-2346-440B-8B6A-C61D4DF27CCD@tzi.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <B9E7C605-2346-440B-8B6A-C61D4DF27CCD@tzi.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-discuss/OPX9OP0OW-IgX8NVdnCw-SN416Q>
Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] pages numbers in ToC in PDF
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: Thu, 27 May 2021 19:13:07 -0000

To actually go back to the root problem, and this is all just revival of
2020 discussions:

A) We wanted to make sure there can be multiple renderings of RFCs.
  They will not have consistent page numbers.

B) We have to avoid the collapse of the Internet, that would happen with A)
   and the fact that references such as "see RFCxxx page NN", would lead to
   implementers writing code for completely wrong pages of reference RFCs.

The problem with that logic is of course what i call "the terrorists always win":
someone does something malicious, or as in this case just less-well-educated,
and then new rules are made to let everyone suffer for it. Most of them not
even understanding why or for no good reason.

IMHO: For future RFCs to be, it is easy for RFC editor to prohibit references
to page numbers of RFC, but instead use correct RFC#/section/paragraph.

For third-party document i would be happy to have a new disclaimer added to
each RFC rendering that includes page numbers:

 "References into this document MUST NOT use page numbers. Any page numbers
  are rendering specific artefacts, not part of the document itself".

Cheers
    Toerless


On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 08:51:37PM +0200, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> On 2021-05-27, at 13:34, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
> > 
> > But, that's useless if you actually dump it to tree-ware.
> 
> It???s almost Friday, so here goes:
> 
> Maybe we need to add to the boilerplate:
> 
> > Please consider the environment before dumping RFCs on dead trees.
> > Since we already did that for you, we made it deliberately hard for you to use tree-based copies of RFCs.
> 
> [SCNR, no such intention actually implied]
> 
> Grüße, Carsten
> 
> PS.: 
> I stopped using paper around the turn of the century.
> I still would like to have page numbers!
> 
> ___________________________________________________________
> Tools-discuss mailing list - Tools-discuss@ietf.org
> This list is for discussion, not for action requests or bug reports.
> * Report datatracker and mailarchive bugs to: datatracker-project@ietf.org
> * Report tools.ietf.org bugs to: webmaster@tools.ietf.org
> * Report all other bugs or issues to: ietf-action@ietf.org
> List info (including how to Unsubscribe): https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss

-- 
---
tte@cs.fau.de