Re: FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? (was: Re: John/rsoc: Re: Page numbers in RFCs questions / preferences)
David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com> Tue, 27 October 2020 23:36 UTC
Return-Path: <davenoveck@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E67FB3A08AE; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 16:36:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 LD9qzzkAEoYy; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 16:36:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ej1-x630.google.com (mail-ej1-x630.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::630]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A0E963A07C3; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 16:36:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ej1-x630.google.com with SMTP id dt13so4614159ejb.12; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 16:36:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Uj/gx+pujMTwcBd3BXY0BGCEN1VqyFmOYOQrqWlP864=; b=Jok+OdRWhT87toJ6Ra/jWFoZZ/dEzBZZaxNqPwBhlnN2alhLIhwb1BN54ziYNv09QZ 1+uBVxrk1NDO4rRf+X+vfrJx7El3JprKA5BTlIK7RtNS0PBpytly+x7y7heVle73svIG acTHoyoAo7hfumBUjtKlJJwoqk3Z+rQPihK2qSrnH/54Y2xiROni/Lan58bgkPxCnRFx 9630+heZFWiUpYayns/UvPwH62pf6Id3rwRUl1tEljvBbEXSctUrw40aJOC+B1ZU+zSj UWnB1iqDnZ9xFJOT9W3k8qsvDALRjLVzBh5GjyJNeOL+Xd2hCErGHrSAHFfPbJMXXG+j iPBg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Uj/gx+pujMTwcBd3BXY0BGCEN1VqyFmOYOQrqWlP864=; b=LpV8esh7V+Smi8CRcrtwpEheLBPJ/Qc7jEehPj9AI4iIsAyoWXkpF9iuG/Ig825T0s pQQDJ3MK82mJj3jaP8OKj4Sz9T/TogtX78TOxwBwJPAjmuCkX26W08o8XRcaRWgnoWI7 B1n6MqQOWGJDWwn68oqY55DeV4C+yfdOHg2CLbfJU6vSClqQjBm3y4s9rBXVU/BsRiLi Oy7ypjGwJ8LZx6c0NwN9PwkXsJeW+Zdxsw93x5+4el/edFCrHgcAe4S8/bxrdlj9XIgp 8SCSAC/br8EGwOHVcl1SxkFbMp4hYoPWNZgSbLLtDkqd2KuHsH0D0wal2dMKW3fmj7v9 dgXg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531SRd92oDMEpNwZvesdPd1InzOVQL3xmIgc/qrAc+16qUnQmL8F Rtc9PTm86JKO++oyn09SlBIwRhm4NmH3cTEPTyrhODUt5qI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxQc9Fl4MDSHmy6/CXKMOKPpxgnYbLEZIYKx9b6NQ5kwDlf8zrhefogtqEK5ckQTHO5ABA4tgcQPBMoL/v2THg=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:6d0c:: with SMTP id m12mr4881695ejr.498.1603841796217; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 16:36:36 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20201026181442.GA2438@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <CAMm+LwiVmE=qtSPCMD-3foPODL8bgETj3dQDKS-3BOM2021dEg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+LwiVmE=qtSPCMD-3foPODL8bgETj3dQDKS-3BOM2021dEg@mail.gmail.com>
From: David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2020 19:36:24 -0400
Message-ID: <CADaq8jdSeTDWy_0fCV25ykxKFMV1ZBtUMMNesoOuaXCzFVfpOA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ? (was: Re: John/rsoc: Re: Page numbers in RFCs questions / preferences)
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
Cc: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>, Working Group Chairs <wgchairs@ietf.org>, RFC Interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>, rsoc@iab.org, John Levine <ietf@johnlevine.com>, IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000008a1e8e05b2af84bb"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/wgchairs/JFKDGMKRSid837FouKRLPQJG_oc>
X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Working Group Chairs <wgchairs.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/wgchairs>, <mailto:wgchairs-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/wgchairs/>
List-Post: <mailto:wgchairs@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:wgchairs-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wgchairs>, <mailto:wgchairs-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2020 23:36:40 -0000
The issue comes up with PDF files. Currently, you get page numbers together with a TOC that has no page numbers. I'm OK with a no-TXT option but I have a problem with a not-usefully-printable option for RFCs. On Tue, Oct 27, 2020, 6:51 PM Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> wrote: > Whooaah there... > > What is the status of this poll? I am all for moving from the subjective > consensus model in which certain parties get a veto because their opinions > are considered weightier than the rest of us. Objective measures of > consensus are good. But is this an official poll? What does it mean? > > But of course, as John K. pointed out, this is not actually an IETF > process. Only of course it is in every meaningful sense except insofar as > IETF rules of the road apply. > > > Page numbers is not the hill I would choose to die on here. They don't > work in HTML and the whole point of this process is that the TXT documents > reflect very badly on the IETF as an organization. It spoke of an > organization that is stuck in the 1960s ranting on about how vinyl is > better than CD. > > There are serious issues with the new format. Not least the fact that SVG > is not actually supported. The supported format is SVG/Tiny which is an > obsolete format originally proposed back in the WAP days as a means of > crippling the spec to fit the capabilities of the devices back before Steve > Jobs showed us an iPhone for the first time. There are no tools that > produce SVG/Tiny, not even GOAT - I had to modify the source code to comply. > > I don't mind retooling to support an improved specification. Having to > retool to support an obsolete one is nonsense. > > > Anyway, how about as a compromise, authors can opt to suppress generation > of the TXT version so that the page number issue doesn't come up at all? > > > On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 2:15 PM Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> wrote: > >> [Sorry, resenting with poll URL instead of result URL] >> >> Since about RFC8650, newer RFC will not have any renderings with >> page numbers on {datatracker,tools}.ietf.org. See explanation from >> John Levine below. >> >> Not having followed the details of the RFC/XMLv3 standardization process, >> i was surprised by this because i think there is no reason to >> have additional renderings, maybe even only on tools.ietf.org that >> do include page numbers (and technically it does not seem to be a problem >> either). >> >> If you care to express your position, >> i have created a poll for this, please chime in there: >> >> https://www.poll-maker.com/poll3188562x294441dA-98 >> >> Results here: >> >> https://www.poll-maker.com/results3188562x294441dA-98 >> >> Cheers >> toerless >> >> On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 01:35:43PM -0400, John R. Levine wrote: >> > > Could you please explain why RSOC does not want to permit the ability >> > > to have paginated RFC output options ? Also, where and when was this >> > > discussed with the community ? >> > >> > It was discussed in the multi-year process leading to the IAB >> > publishing RFCs 7990, 7991, 7992, 7993, 7994, 7995, 7996, 7997, and >> > 7998 in 2016. I'm sure you know how to find the discussions in the >> > archives. Henrik knows all of this and I cannot imagine why he did not >> tell >> > you the same thing. >> > >> > I am aware there is one recent RFC author who did not participate in >> > the process at all and has been complaining that the text version of >> > his RFC doesn't have page numbers. I've explained this to him more >> > than once, and see no reason to waste more time on it. >> > >> > R's, >> > John >> >>
- Re: [rfc-i] Jim: Re: FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Jim: Re: [rfc-i] FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page … Mark Andrews
- FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty pleas… Toerless Eckert
- Re: FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty p… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty p… David Noveck
- Re: FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty p… Jim Fenton
- Re: FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty p… Andrew G. Malis
- Re: FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty p… Jim Fenton
- Re: FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty p… David Noveck
- Re: FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty p… Robert Sparks
- Re: [rfc-i] FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (… Carsten Bormann
- Setting Reply-To Robert Sparks
- Re: Setting Reply-To Derek Atkins
- Jim: Re: [rfc-i] FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page numb… Toerless Eckert
- Re: Jim: Re: [rfc-i] FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page … John C Klensin
- Re: Jim: Re: [rfc-i] FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page … Warren Kumari
- Re: Jim: Re: [rfc-i] FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page … Mark Andrews
- Re: Jim: Re: [rfc-i] FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page … Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [rfc-i] Jim: Re: FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page … Michael Richardson
- Re: [rfc-i] Jim: Re: FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page … Larry Masinter
- Re: Jim: Re: [rfc-i] FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page … Donald Eastlake
- Re: Jim: Re: [rfc-i] FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page … Leonard Giuliano
- Re: Jim: Re: [rfc-i] FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page … Christian Huitema
- Re: [rfc-i] Jim: Re: FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page … Toerless Eckert
- RE: Jim: Re: [rfc-i] FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page … Black, David
- Re: [irsg] Jim: Re: [rfc-i] FIXED: Poll: RFCs wit… Jane Coffin
- RE: [irsg] Jim: Re: [rfc-i] FIXED: Poll: RFCs wit… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [rfc-i] Jim: Re: FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page … John C Klensin
- Re: [rfc-i] Jim: Re: FIXED: Poll: RFCs with page … Larry Masinter
- Re: [Rsoc] [rfc-i] RFCs with page numbers (pretty… John R. Levine
- Re: [rfc-i] [Rsoc] RFCs with page numbers (pretty… Brian E Carpenter