[rfc-i] RFC Format - final requirements and next steps
clint.chaplin at gmail.com
Thu May 17 13:40:39 PDT 2012
Heck, some of the >notes< are different between the two versions.
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Joe Hildebrand <jhildebr at cisco.com> wrote:
> On 5/16/12 6:07 PM, "Bjoern Hoehrmann" <derhoermi at gmx.net> wrote:
> > * Martin Rex wrote:
> >> Page numbers are extremely useful!
> > I remember being confused about this the very first time we were to read
> > some book for school and ... were supposed to buy one particular edition
> > of it, even if we had the book already, just so the page numbers match.
> > Then I learned that books that are often used in school are regularily
> > updated in ways that slightly change the page numbers. Found that funny.
> This phenomenon will also be familiar to anyone who has ever sung the
> Messiah ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah_(Handel) ) with a large
> group. Roughly half the group will have the Schirmer version
> (http://goo.gl/ds2q3) and the other half will have the Shaw version (
> http://goo.gl/AnEbY). Page numbers are completely worthless, and even
> better, the section marks are in slightly different places. There is
> much flailing about until the director realizes that the only thing that is
> useful are the measure numbers, or he/she gives up and buys everyone a copy
> of the version they prefer out of his/her own pocket.
> The problem is so bad that a *third* book is really the right way to solve
> it (http://goo.gl/I5ush), which has the section marks and page numbers
> the other two books marked in cool typographical conventions throughout.
> Joe Hildebrand
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
Clint (JOATMON) Chaplin
Standards & Technology Enabling
Advanced Technology Lab
Samsung Electronics US R&D Center
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the rfc-interest