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

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Thu May 17 09:37:06 PDT 2012


On 2012-05-17 18:31, Tim Bray wrote:
> 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.

It's trivial for immutable documents (so for Internet Drafts and RFCs).

What's non-trivial is a way to *expose* the anchors without using JS, or 
getting in the way of other things.

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

I think it's a nice-to-have, and also cheap to achieve. However, it 
should be sufficient that the anchor is just there waiting to be used. 
(For instance, there are browser extensions that highlight the closest 
anchor).

Best regards, Julian


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list