[rfc-i] Pagination requirements

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Tue May 15 08:32:56 PDT 2012


On 2012-05-15 17:18, Martin Rex wrote:
> ...
>> 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

I would argue that a section that spans multiple pages needs more 
structure in the form of subsections.

> with reasonable proximity -- and that page-based location information
> remains valid across all display devices.
> ...

For some value of "valid" and "devices". "Page 17" may be "valid" when 
using a 7 inch screen, but it's certainly not helpful.

>> 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

I would make that a named anchor.

>> 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.

Best regards, Julian


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list