[rfc-i] Referring to specific paragraphs, Re: draft-rfc-image-files-03

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Wed Apr 11 03:07:21 PDT 2012


On 2012-04-11 11:47, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 11 Apr 2012, at 11:11 , Julian Reschke wrote:
>
>>> Perhaps we should tag the
>>> start of every paragraph uniquely so that, not only are sections directly
>>> referenced, but so are specific paragraphs.
>
>> Of course. rfc2629.xslt has been doing that for many years now.
>
> I don't like this. This would require having the document as HTML or another format that supports hyperlinks and then clicking on the link. That's way too many technological dependencies. References should be clear from the text; links are just extras that save a little time.

It's optional.

If we insist on line numbers, than we can essentially stop the format 
discussion, as having line numbers implies fixed formatting.

> If it's really necessary to point to a specific paragraph then either the author should make that paragraph its own (sub)section or make the paragraphs in question (obviously there must be more than one otherwise a reference to a section would suffice) part of a numbered list.

Disagreed.

> Coming up with all kinds of clever stuff is exactly what makes XML2RFC so hard to use. Yes, it's very clever that the tool "knows" that it can form "F. Author" from<author initials="F" surname="Author" fullname="First Author">, but this clever scheme doesn't allow for the fact that my last name is capitalized as "Van Beijnum", "I. van Beijnum" and "Iljitsch van Beijnum" so the RFC Editor had to go in and manually correct for this.

I don't think this has anything to do with the thing we were just 
discussing :-)

> There are two schools of thought: make a 100% solution or make an 80% solution. Both can make sense, but please don't pretend to make a 100% solution that's really an 80% solution.

Yes. Of course there are tradeoffs and limitations.

Did anybody claim to have a 100% solution? Did anybody claim that there 
*can* be a 100% solution, given incompatible requirements?

Best regards, Julian


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list