[rfc-i] Pagination requirements

Martin Rex mrex at sap.com
Tue May 15 08:18:03 PDT 2012


Paul Hoffman wrote:
> 
> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> 
>>> Page length is a similar issue but not nearly as problematic,
>>> because jumping over some headers/footers is annoying, but
>>> doesn't get in the way of readability
>> 
>> Indeed. And since we allow internal page references, getting rid of
>> page numbers is not an option.
> 
> Why are page references so much better than section references
> that we need to have pages in the canonical format?

Because there are numerous sections that span multiple pages, and
it is really helpful when you can specify locations in a specification
with reasonable proximity -- and that page-based location information
remains valid across all display devices.


>
> In an unpaginated document, "the third paragraph of section 3.2" is
> more likely to be definitive than "the third paragraph on page 17",

Specifying the defintion of the CRL structure in the ASN.1 moduled
of rfc5280 is trivial:  The definiton at the top of page 118,

    http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5280#page-118

but trying to (a) specify and (b) locate it relative to the
enclosing section looks like a royal PITA to me:

    http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5280#appendix-A.1


>
> given that page 17 has a high likelihood of starting with a partial
> paragraph. In such a case, is the "third paragraph on page 17" the
> third text chunk or the fourth?

Intuitively, it must be the third.  I would consider it weird to use
a context-sensitive page-based locator scheme.


-Martin


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list