[rfc-i] Pagination requirements
mrex at sap.com
Tue May 22 15:10:16 PDT 2012
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> Martin Rex wrote:
> > The discussion seems to circle around braindead software on small devices.
> > There is no requirement for the software that visualizes RFCs on small
> > devices to waste most of their fingernail screen real estate with a
> > representation of the pre-pagination page breaks. It would be trivial
> > to not display them at all.
> That is true. However, in my opinion it would be better to explicitly
> make page numbers a local matter.
What I dislike is the constant confusion of "screenful" (in particular
for small devices) with "page", a term from the paper-area.
Since RFCs do NOT change after publication, the preformatted page
numbers are completely stable and there is *NO* confusion about what
page 87 of rfc1122 refers to. And pages are currently the anchor
tags that work for *ALL* existing RFCs through the
interface. There are a number of older RFCs where section number anchor
tags work poorly (just top level sections as e.g. rfc1122, rfc1123)
or not at all (e.g. rfc2743).
So it is extremely helpful that page number anchor have been available as
stable, unambiguous fallbacks when discussing and refering to
specific contents of existing RFCs with URLs.
> > Nope, I prefer to limit quotes to what I believe matters -- but for
> > fairness I would like to include an URL that puts the quoted information
> > directly on-screen when clicked and enables others to check the vincinity
> > of the quoted text to see whether that quotation is "out of context".
> A page number is not really better than a section reference in this regard.
It often *IS* much better, in particular with the existing RFCs.
Refering to a specific element from an ASN.1 module or other data
in the appendix of an RFC would be awkward without page numbers,
e.g. the ASN.1 definition of a CRL in PKIX/rfc5280:
More information about the rfc-interest