[rfc-i] Referring to specific paragraphs, Re: draft-rfc-image-files-03
hallam at gmail.com
Wed Apr 11 05:52:45 PDT 2012
I am pretty sure that if there is a real need to specify a text range
in an HTML document with greater specificity than the paragraph then
W3C will have already done it.
XPATH was originally meant to do just that. If they didn't then it is
probably because there isn't really a need.
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 6:07 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
> 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
>>>> 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.
>> 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
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest