[rfc-i] RFC Format - final requirements and next steps

Tim Bray tbray at textuality.com
Thu May 17 09:31:55 PDT 2012


I think the return on investment for per-paragraph anchors is very
low.  The proportion of cases where linking to a section or subsection
isn’t going to be good enough is very low, and the amount of apparatus
to maintain stable per-paragraph identifiers is quite significant.

I do not agree that per-paragraph accessibility is a requirement.  -T

On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
> On 2012-05-17 18:20, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>
>> On 5/17/12 9:42 AM, Joe Hildebrand wrote:
>>>
>>> On 5/17/12 8:52 AM, "Julian Reschke"<julian.reschke at gmx.de>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Maybe make the whole paragraph clickable instead (using JS)?
>>>
>>>
>>> If we allow JS, this is a *really* easy problem.  The link I sent to
>>> Tim's
>>> blog is a good example of how it could work:
>>>
>>> http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2004/05/31/PurpleAgain
>>>
>>> However, I don't think we want to open the Pandora's Box of JavaScript
>>> until
>>> we absolutely have to, at least for the canonical version.
>>
>>
>> +1 to that. Ideally our documents would be viewable and fully functional
>> with NoScript or equivalent enabled.
>
>
> Sure.
>
> But I would still call them "fully functional" if there's no simple way to
> find out the anchor for a given paragraph. In particular, if the alternative
> is to add content that gets in the way and affects copy/paste.
>
> Best regards, Julian
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list