[rfc-i] Referring to specific paragraphs, Re: draft-rfc-image-files-03
hallam at gmail.com
Wed Apr 11 07:52:16 PDT 2012
It sounds like a 'what colour should the minibus be' type problem.
It can't be solved because there are multiple solutions and everyone
can have an opinion.
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 9:14 AM, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth at adobe.com> wrote:
> There are at least five(!!) different groups that I am aware of, including two just in the W3C, that are trying to address this problem, coming at it from different directions. It will most likely be addressed, but I don't see a resolution in the near term.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rfc-interest-bounces at rfc-editor.org [mailto:rfc-interest-bounces at rfc-editor.org] On Behalf Of Phillip Hallam-Baker
> Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 8:53 AM
> To: julian.reschke at gmx.de
> Cc: RFC Interest
> Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Referring to specific paragraphs, Re: draft-rfc-image-files-03
> 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
>>>>> 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.
>>> 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
>>> 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
>> *can* be a 100% solution, given incompatible requirements?
>> Best regards, Julian
>> rfc-interest mailing list
>> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> Website: http://hallambaker.com/
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest