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

[Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>]

Is there any reason why the tools team would not be able to produce
a rendered version that does incude page numbers ? PDF and txt ?
Call it RFC classic format ?

This is even just for simple examination like checking how long
a particular RFC is. Ridiculous if there is no indication of that.

If so, does a request like that first need to go into some RFC,
or just into the infinite wish list of the tools team where it might
only be prioritized by rallying up the community to provide some
+1 (in whatever fashion is appropriate - which i am unclear about...).

Cheers
    Toerless

On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 01:55:40PM +0100, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> On 2020-10-26, at 11:51, David Noveck <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > 
> > I think it happened with the conversion to v3 xml.  At that time, the 72-character-ragged-right .txt format ceased to be considered canonical (long overdue in my opinion).  As a result, in accord with some RFC that I was pointed to, a decision was made (by whom it wasn't clear) to make all TOCs the same, so that the pdf and text TOCs lost theirs since there was no way to add them to html which doesn't have them.  The logic is impeccable if you grant the premises and nobody ever considered rethinking the premises when it resulted in nearly useless printed documents. Sigh!
> 
> Obviously, with canonical XML, there is no good solution to this problem: Different renditions will have different concepts of pages, so the TOC???s won???t align.
> 
> (That is not a good argument for then finally choosing what is probably the worst possible solution to this problem.  I think what happened is that nobody thought about PDF where we continue to have pages, so there never really was a problem specific to retaining pages and thus page numbers in the TXT.)
> 
> Grüße, Carsten

-- 
---
[e-mail]