[rfc-i] Pagination requirements
Iljitsch van Beijnum
iljitsch at muada.com
Tue May 22 15:22:35 PDT 2012
On 23 May 2012, at 0:10 , Martin Rex wrote:
> 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.
But the price of that stability is extremely high in the current system: pages are formatted for a size that is inconvenient in the majority of situations.
> And pages are currently the anchor
> tags that work for *ALL* existing RFCs through the
Current tools are irrelevant to the discussions about a future format.
> There are a number of older RFCs where section number anchor
> tags work poorly (just top level sections as e.g. rfc1122, rfc1123)
Well, let's not make any new old RFCs for which this is the case then.
> 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.
s/ is / has been /g
Even if all your points remain relevant in a new system, which would be unexpected to say the least, I still want pagination to go because linking to a page is something that very rarely happens, while trying to read an RFC with pages, or worse, lines that don't fit on your screen is something that makes me want to kill puppies each time it happens, so I need to spend inordinate amounts of time and effort to make sure to get the right alternative version or massage the printing process to avoid it.
More information about the rfc-interest