[rfc-i] Pagination requirements

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Tue May 22 15:23:17 PDT 2012


On 2012-05-23 00:10, Martin Rex wrote:
> 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

If there is pre-pagination.

> 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
>
>     http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfcXXXX
>
> interface.  There are a number of older RFCs where section number anchor
> tags work poorly (just top level sections as e.g. rfc1122, rfc1123)
>
>    http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1122#page-87
>
> or not at all (e.g. rfc2743).
>
>    http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2743#page-42
>
> 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.

They have been helpful for historic RFCs. So?

>>> 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.

We are discussing future 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:
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5280#page-118

What if the URI would be

   http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5280#ABNF-CRL

instead?

Best regards, Julian


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list