Re: Poll: RFCs with page numbers (pretty please) ?

[Flemming Andreasen <[e-mail]>]

On 10/26/20 5:14 PM, John Scudder wrote:
> On Oct 26, 2020, at 2:56 PM, Brian E Carpenter 
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>> As Julian Reschke observed on the rfc-interest list, since the
>> new RFC format was implemented:
>>
>>> page numbers should not be used to refer to parts of the
>>> RFC, because page breaks vary with output formats
>>
>> So I can only see confusion if people use page numbers for
>> any purpose whatever. So it doesn't matter if people want
>> page numbers; they're now useless. So I won't be answering
>> a poll, and I don't think the results are interesting.
>
> The argument that page numbers are harmful as a way of referring to a 
> section of the RFC is reasonable.
>
> The argument that page numbers are harmful for *any* *purpose* 
> *whatever* is not reasonable. To offer one glaringly obvious 
> counterexample, people (I, for one) sometimes print RFCs for the 
> purpose of reading them. Sometimes we want to make use of some kind of 
> facility for indexing from a list of headings to facilitate direct 
> access to the right section of the pile of printout. A table of 
> contents, in short. This is literally what tables of contents were 
> invented for. They remain useful for this purpose… unless some bright 
> spark chooses to remove the page numbers from them, because they 
> forgot what tables of contents are FOR.
>
+1

Page numbers are also quite helpful to keep the pages in the right order 
after you have printed them, and in a ToC it helps giving you an idea of 
how much material is in each section.

I confess that while most of my reading is on-line, I still buy physical 
books, use highlighters and occasionally print out an RFC either in part 
or in full. It sounds like I'm not the only one, and I have a hard time 
understanding why I am not allowed to get page numbers to help in that 
process.

Thanks

-- Flemming


> (Also, I think the use of the ToC for quickly estimating a document’s 
> throw weight is a valid one. I previously suggested associating a 
> BogoPages metric with each non paginated RFC for this purpose.)
>
> —John