[rfc-i] Who uses Word, was Proposed new RFC submission requirements
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Tue Jun 5 00:21:21 PDT 2012
On 2012-06-05 02:49, Martin Rex wrote:
> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> [ Charset UTF-8 unsupported, converting... ]
>> Martin Rex wrote:
>>> That is unnecessary for the submission format and should therefore be
>>> at discretion of the authoring tools. Automated generation of section
>>> numbers requires a lot of code (for the tools) and meta-data to
>>> be created&maintained (for the author), and for documents up to 50
>>> pages there is no benefit except maybe for some very chaotic authors.
>> Automated internal cross-references are an enormous benefit even for
>> the least chaotic authors.
> It really depends on the author!
> For small documents, I found them to be counterproductive(!) for documents
> of less than 50 pages, i.e. the effort to maintain and update the
> meta-data exceeds the maintenance of the references itself.
> Often there are few internal cross-links anyway, and consciously
> tracking changes of cross-references when doing major surgery on
> a document helps keeping the mental model in sync with the
> real document.
> But then, there are folks that use the mouse to copy single words because
> of how slow they type. I am often too lazy to move my hand off the
> keyboard and over to the mouse and rather re-type a whole line.
> This probably depends on one's typing speed. At 200+cps, retyping
> a whole line does not take very long.
I appreciate that you can type fast.
But being fast doesn't mean it's simple to maintain references when
sections are renumbered.
Again: even if the authors does everything right, you just shift the
work to the paid (!) team of the RFC production center. I don't think
that's a good idea.
Best regards, Julian
More information about the rfc-interest