Re: [irsg] Resending: Page numbers in RFCs questions / preferences

[Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 05:48:15PM -0400, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 06:36:19PM +0000, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
> > I wasn't involved in the RFC format discussion either but can't see how
> > removing the pagination could have been seen as an advantage.
> > Additionally, it is annoying that the htmlized version don't provide links
> > to sections/sub-sections from TOC. 
> 
> I understand why the page numbers were removed.  I think you're getting to
> the more core issue: There is a need to provide a way to refer to portions
> of documents easily.
> 
> For individual sections, the TOC absolutely should provide linkage to
> sections, especially in formats like HTML.

The native HTML format does.  I have no idea why the htmlization script
can't or does not do so for new-format RFCs.

> The input XML already provides blocks.  It should be fairly reasonable for
> the tool to provide you something like "this is section X.Y, ¶5".

Like https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8815.html#section-3.1-5 ?

-Ben

> How such a thing would eventually manifest in our old school email
> discussions is likely to be the ugly discussion.
> 
> -- Jeff
>