Re: [rfc-i] Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ?

[Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>]

On 10/27/20 7:33 AM, Keith Drage wrote:
> I do agree that referencing by section numbering is the appropriate method.
> 
> However, as you say, it gets difficult with overly long sections, and 
> this is something on which no guidance or checking is currently given. 
> Perhaps it should be?
> 
> Further there are difficulties with section references if you allow text 
> between x.y.z and x.y.z.1. Does a reference to x.y.z mean the entirety 
> of the text including x.y.z.1, or merely the text before x.y.z. Other 
> organisations restrict such usage in order to make section references 
> unambiguous.

+1

Sections that contain subsections are commonly long. And not only can 
x.y.z contain text prior to x.y.z.1, it can also contain text after 
subsections that is not part of a subsection.

Perhaps the solution is paragraph numbers. But I don't know how you 
would include them in the txt format.

	Thanks,
	Paul

> I also note people are referring to the XML version as the definitive 
> version, but surely the section numbers do not appear until the 
> presentation version is created?
> 
> Keith
> 
> On 27/10/2020 01:53, John C Klensin wrote:
>>
>> --On Tuesday, October 27, 2020 01:30 +0000 Ronald Tse
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks John for the clarification. There is some confusion to
>>> me whether the intention is just about the TXT output having
>>> page numbers, or for the PDF to also have the same page
>>> numbers, and whether to use page numbers inside cross
>>> references. There was a also discussion about a ToC and page
>>> numbers, but perhaps that was a diversion.
>>>
>>> If the discussion is only about the ASCII output having page
>>> numbers, I have no objection because it is (nearly) purely
>>> cosmetic (in publication and in usage of the text, being done
>>> by xml2rfc).
>>>
>>> If having page numbers will require the PDF output to also
>>> have page numbers, this inevitably leads to some shared spec
>>> between the TXT and PDF outputs on the topic of pagination,
>>> which is less ideal, but since I assume that is the work of
>>> xml2rfc, it's not a concern to us as tool maintainers.
>> Actually, I think you have it a bit backward.  The PDF has page
>> numbers today.  More to the point, PDF is (almost) inherently a
>> page image format so there is no way to escape pagination.  One
>> could decide to not number those pages in the footers, or one
>> could eliminate the headers and footers entirely, but the page
>> boundaries are going to be there regardless.
>>
>> However, as long as a strict discipline is maintained that
>> references (within an RFC, between RFCs, and whatever we can
>> do/encourage about external references to RFCs use are to
>> section numbers and not pages (and there Brian and I agree)
>> _and_ as long as we don't allow sections to become so long that
>> people seek other mechanisms, then whether the page numbers in a
>> text format agree with those in the PDF format or not is largely
>> irrelevant.  That issue is centuries old: if I reference a
>> chapter by number in a book, that reference is typically stable
>> for different printings and formats (and often but not always
>> between editions).  But the page numbers often are not, so,
>> unless the people doing the layout are _really_ careful, using
>> the index from, e.g., a hardbound copy and trying to apply its
>> numbers to a paperback that uses different size type and page
>> layouts is, to use a technical term, just plain dumb.  And
>> external references that use page numbers need to be very
>> careful to specify exactly what form is being referred to.
>>
>>> Adding page numbers to cross references can make reading
>>> confusing — since the cross references between the paginated
>>> and flowed versions will render these references differently.
>>> It's doable, but again this requirement ties the paginated
>>> versions (TXT and PDF) together for consistency.
>> And, again, this is why there has been a long-term prohibition
>> in the RFC Series against using page numbers in cross references.
>>
>>> Of course, if the PDF output is simply an enhanced PDF-ized
>>> TXT version, these aren't really issues.
>> But two of several advantages of the contemporary (xml2rfc v3)
>> PDF version is that it can contain and render pictures easily
>> and that, if characters are used outside the ASCII repertoire,
>> they are rendered correctly as well.
>>
>> best,
>>      john
>>
>